Fisheries Committee on Jan. 20th, 2022

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

It's just to add “Atlantic Canada” after “eastern Quebec”.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

That's the amendment you're moving.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Yes.

Go ahead, Mr. Cormier—have you finished, Mr. Morrissey?

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

I wanted to have a clarification on what Mr. Perkins was proposing as an amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

It was adding “Atlantic Canada” after the words “eastern Quebec”.

Not seeing any other hands up on the proposed amendment, can I see thumbs-up or thumbs-down? If it is confusing, I'll ask for a recorded vote.

We should do a recorded vote, because I see some thumbs-up and a lot of nothing.

Tina, please do a recorded vote on the amendment proposed by Mr. Perkins.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We'll move on to debate on the main motion as amended. I don't see any hands up.

Tina, could we have a recorded vote on this, as well, please?

(Motion as amended agreed to: yeas 6; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Now we will go to Mr. Arnold.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to introduce a further motion today. After discussion at our meeting on Tuesday, we've made substantive changes to the motion that was presented, and I would propose the following: “That pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee undertake a study of at least six meetings to examine how the Department of Fisheries and Oceans prioritizes resources and develops science studies and advice for the department and how the minister applies data and advice provided by the department and other government departments to ministerial decisions; and that the committee call witnesses, including the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, senior department officials from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and persons who have directly contributed to the department's science and science process to testify; that the committee hear from no fewer than 20 witnesses; and that the committee report its conclusions and recommendations to the House.

I believe that's being transmitted to the clerk as I speak.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Tina, could you let me know when you receive it, please?

There's a thumbs-up from Tina.

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

I have a point of order for clarification, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Go ahead, Mr. Cormier.

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

Is this the same motion that Mr. Arnold tabled last Tuesday, the exact one?

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

No, this is substantially different. The previous motion asked how the minister applies scientific advice to ministerial decisions. This one asks how the minister applies data and advice provided by the department and other government departments. This one also specifies how many witnesses at a minimum we should hear from at this committee. We were asked for further definition or a narrowing of the scope of that previous motion; we believe the current motion has done so.

Over the past six years, I can't think of a study undertaken by this committee that did not touch on the science or the need for science, a need that I believe all parties recognize. I didn't support everything in budget 2016, but I welcomed the investment in DFO science because I know how important DFO science is, and still is today, to the conservation and rebuilding of our major stocks, especially Pacific salmon. However, in the past six years, that major investment in DFO science since 2016 hasn't delivered the results that the fisheries need and the results that Canadians who depend on those fisheries need.

I would draw the member's attention to the testimony we heard in the last Parliament, which warned us that “we can't manage what we don't measure. We're not monitoring enough and we're not measuring enough.”

In the last Parliament, that wasn't the only testimony our committee received that should have drawn our attention to DFO science. My understanding is that science is the ruler that the department and the government use to measure the state of stocks, the quality of habitats, and threats. We've been told that adequate funding is in place and we are told that appropriate plans and strategies are in place, but despite this, we're not seeing the results we need in many of our fisheries. Rather, we're seeing the exact opposite, as stocks continue to decline.

In the last Parliament we also heard that the government's reinterpretation of spot prawn tubbing regulations did not have a sound scientific basis, despite the assertion by DFO and the minister that the reinterpretation was based on science and conservation. It seems that the government has now pulled back its reinterpretation, but the damage has been done. Harvesters, retailers and supply chains, all of which employ Canadians, have been shaken. The confidence of Canadians in their federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans has also been shaken. These are just two examples.

I'm glad that the member for Egmont pressed for clarity in the motion at the last meeting, because I do want all members to be clear on what this motion seeks to achieve and why it's of value to this committee and the work that we aspire to do and provide to Canadians. In the coming Parliament, I assure you that every single study we undertake together as a committee will touch on the science and DFO science. I see great value in undertaking this study early in this Parliament to inform our understandings of DFO science and the science process in the department that is meant to inform the minister's decisions. We all want sound decisions based on sound science and we all want to support the scientific process that supports the minister whose decisions have significant effects on fisheries and oceans and the Canadians who depend on them.

I have more to say, but I'll allow some comments at this time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Arnold.

I see some hands up.

Go ahead, Mr. Morrissey.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like Mr. Arnold to go back to explain the difference in the key phrasing that he altered. I want to be in a position to see if I can support where he is going, because his comments are very valid.

I can recall that one of the most dramatic decisions ever made by a fisheries minister was made—and I'll say it—by my good friend the late John Crosbie. He was a Conservative, but somebody I had grown to know and have great respect for, and we worked well. He discussed it with me personally when he went back to Newfoundland to deliver the terrible news of closing that key fishery. The science was telling politicians and ministers for years and years that something terrible was happening, but the political arm kept pushing where we'd go in a different direction.

We do have to have extremely strong science. That's why our government made a fundamental and strong commitment to strengthening the parts of the department that had been so reduced over the years, because science and data go hand in hand. Often the first body that gets attacked when a primary producer is affected—and I'm seeing this now in P.E.I. in the potato industry—is the regulator, the regulating body within government. Next in line is the politician. We've seen it over the years. It is extremely important.

I do like the context. We may need some opportunity to absorb the full context of your motion, Mr. Arnold, and your comments. I suspect that I, for one, could probably find some common ground, but where are we going and what is the part that we want to really get at in this study?

This could be one of the most fundamental studies. We've had several since I've been on this committee. One that drew a lot of passion and a lot of discussion was the one on moderate livelihood, but it was a very good study. This is where some of it came from. If you look at the problems, the issues we dealt with on the west coast, there is a constant tug-of-war regarding whose science we should respect. Who is independent? We've had, in the past, independent scientists and experts from outside DFO appear before the committee and speak, and often it's in conflict. Then the fisher is left to question which direction they are going.

I still feel—and you may want to speak to this point—that while you did change some wording in the motion, we are still at the same part. I would like to see a really clear focus, and maybe we could spend some time looking at the language and where we would want to go with the study. I would want to see that and reserve opinion on how I would vote on it.

That is my perspective, Mr. Arnold. You're right. There are examples in the past of the political leadership not responding to the science and the data very well, and the primary producer, at the end of the day, paid the consequences. I can relate to a number of situations—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

I'm sorry, Mr. Morrissey. I have to interrupt you. Our time is up for today. We have reached 2:30 Newfoundland time, which allows a two-hour committee meeting.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

The meeting is now adjourned.