Fisheries Committee on Jan. 18th, 2022

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In addition to that, we've seen some recent correspondence from scientists for DFO in Newfoundland questioning the department's use of the recommendations going forward and whether they're being portrayed properly through the decision-making process. I don't know if all members are aware of that letter.

As well, under the new minister, we've seen some recent decisions in British Columbia that call into question whether science is being used in that decision-making process.

I think this area is important for us in understanding the two aspects of how the scientists are feeling about how they were included in the decision-making process and also how the minister herself is actually using them.

I think there is a lot of clarity in the motion and that there is a specific goal right there.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Perkins.

We have Mr. Kelloway.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

I think I was next, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Yes. I'm sorry.

Your hand is not yellow. It's like a pale hand, and I didn't [Technical difficulty—Editor]

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

As a visiting member of the last fisheries and oceans committee in the last Parliament, I questioned the minister several times on decisions that seemed to counter the science, science that was available even to the public and was provided to the ministry. I think this is what Mr. Arnold is trying to get at.

To me, counter to some of the Liberal comments earlier, this motion gives us a perfect platform to see how the decisions are made and to refer to the science, if indeed that's the way those decisions are made. To me, it's an opportunity to clarify for all our user groups and stakeholders out there how DFO makes its decisions.

Again, as a B.C. resident, I will say that it needs to be abundantly clear how they do that, and this motion addresses that need.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Zimmer.

I have Mr. Kelloway.

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

[Technical difficulty—Editor] my opinion, this is not a focused study, but I think that in a lot of ways what the members opposite are doing in terms of providing clarity on what they would like to study would be—although I would probably disagree with it—a definitive study. Right now, it seems like you could drive a Mack truck through this particular motion.

That said, I'm hearing a lot of comments that would potentially provide more substance to it.

The other element, I would say, is that one of the benefits of having the minister come for two hours is that we'll get to ask questions just like these.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Kelloway.

Go ahead, Mr. Hardie.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

I think that the focus and the intent of this motion is perhaps misaimed. Mr. Zimmer actually landed on it: There needs to be an examination of how DFO makes decisions and how that relates to the minister and the development of policy. Science is one element that informs decision-making, but there are others.

Particularly when you look at the obligation that DFO has to employ the precautionary principle and the fact that science will never be 100% conclusive—we've certainly seen enough of that, particularly in oceans studies—Mr. Arnold should be invited to come back with something that more closely represents what Mr. Zimmer mentioned. It should focus on how science has developed, how mandates are provided by management to the science branch and then how the results from science—I won't even call them “conclusions”, because they are never very definitive—factor in to the overall decision-making process.

As it sits with this particular study and the way it's moved, I can't support it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Hardie.

Go ahead, Mr. Cormier.

[Serge Cormier, Liberal, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

My comments are almost in line with everybody else's.

When I hear the word “science” coming from my Conservative colleagues, I always want to laugh so hard. Remember what was done to science when they were in power.

The minister will come for two hours if we just vote on it. Members will have a lot of opportunity to ask some questions of the minister about this. We have to trust science. Whether we like it or not, scientists at DFO are well trained and well equipped to get good data, whether it's on fisheries or other issues that they study. We have to trust them. I think DFO is doing a great job when it comes to collecting data in my region.

I'm going to vote against this motion. It's something that we can ask the minister about when she comes. We just have to let officials take some questions that we have regarding science when they come.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Cormier.

Go ahead, Mr. Perkins.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

I have two comments.

On Mr. Cormier's comments, I'm flabbergasted that the government side is so afraid of looking at how the government uses the science they claim they use in the decision-making process.

To Mr. Hardie's comments, I understand what you're saying, but right in the motion it says "how the minister applies scientific advice to ministerial decisions." It's pretty clear that the motion does contain exactly what Mr. Hardie was asking for with more specifications on the motion. It's already there.

I support this motion. I'm dumbfounded that the Liberals are afraid of having a study done on how they use science in their decision-making process.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Perkins.

Mel, before I go back to you, I'm going to Madame Desbiens.

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

Mr. Chair, we were talking earlier about correspondence. We have not received that many documents on this, which means that I am missing information to help me form my opinion about this motion.

I would also like to clarify something. I spoke up a few moments ago to ask to be the next to present a motion. Although I was certainly speaking out of context, I thought I needed to in that moment, and I would like to make sure that I'm on the list.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

You are on the list. I don't know whether we're going to get that far, but you are on the list.

Mr. Bachrach, do you want to speak to this motion?

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Very briefly. I had the same point as Ms. Desbiens. I would also like to be on the list.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you. If we get there, you'll be on it.

We'll go back to you, Mr. Arnold, for any response to those concerns.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think Mr. Perkins wrapped up most of it with regard to Mr. Hardie's questions about how the science is used, and that's what this study is looking at. What I have proposed here is that we find a better understanding of how the science is used in the decision-making process. It's not just the science, but whether the science gets overridden by other factors in the process as well, or whether other factors are brought in to temper the science or find the middle ground on certain issues. All of these things could be covered in this study.

It's simply six meetings for us to question the minister and her department on specifically how they are developing the science, what science they are using to make their decisions, and then how that science is used along with other processes in making the decisions. That's really what we're gearing up for here. I certainly hope we can get a better understanding of how the minister and her department make decisions that affect fishermen and the communities that depend on those fisheries.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you for that, Mr. Arnold.

I don't see any more hands up for further discussion on this particular motion.

From the comments I'm hearing, I think there will be some division on this motion, so I'll ask Tina to do a recorded vote on this one, please.

Tina, please proceed when you're ready.

[The Clerk]

Thank you.

This vote is on the motion by Mr. Arnold.

Mr. Chair, the vote is as follows: yeas 5; nays 5.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Can I ask for a moment to talk to the clerk off-line, please?

Okay. We're back. I've spoken to the clerk. Obviously, now the decision falls on me to vote yea or nay to either move this forward or to go against it going forward. I will cast my vote. It's not a position I like being put in, but I will cast my vote as a nay.

(Motion negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

I want to give everyone a quick update on the list of hands that are up to bring motions forward.

Next up is Mr. Zimmer. Then I have Mr. Small, Mr. Cormier, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Desbiens and Mr. Bachrach. We have approximately a little over 15 minutes left in the committee meeting.

Mr. Zimmer, you're up.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Thanks, Chair.

Thank you, everybody. I'll be quick. This motion was tabled originally on December 14, 2021

That pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) the committee undertake a study examining the scope and effects of illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing (IUU) on Canada's fisheries resources and the degradation of those resources caused by illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing;

that the committee receive witness testimony from the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Minister of National Defence, officials from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and Department of National Defence and Canadians impacted by IUU fishing;

that the committee allot no fewer than eight two-hour meetings to receive said testimony;

that the committee also accept written briefs from individuals or organizations who wish to submit input; and

that the committee submit its findings with recommendations in a report to the House.

That's my motion.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

We've heard the motion, and I believe copies are being provided.

Mr. Arnold, you have your hand up.

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

Sorry, Mr. Chair. My apologies.