Fisheries Committee on Dec. 2nd, 2022

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Excellent.

I'm moving over to the funding of $194 million and some change for the reconciliation allocation in this supplementary budget. It's in grants and contributions to advance reconciliation on indigenous rights and fisheries. Particularly for our indigenous communities in Yukon, it's back to the health of the salmon fishery as a key component of reconciliation.

I want to check in with any specific Yukon considerations around this, aside from the PSSI conversations, and around the reconciliation funding, the restoration of the fishery and related traditional and cultural practices. We know how important the salmon fishery is, not just for food security, but for learning—learning on the land, learning from elders—and the whole traditions and cultures around that.

[Rebecca Reid]

What I would say on that is we work with the Yukon government and the indigenous peoples in a couple of different ways. There is funding provided under regular programming. There's the aboriginal fisheries strategy. There's funding there. There's also funding provided under the Pacific salmon treaty allocation.

There are a couple of different ways that funding is provided, in addition to the funds that are flowed through the Yukon umbrella final agreement implementation pieces.

Those are the pieces I would highlight for you.

[Annette Gibbons]

I would just add that this is funding across a number of different programs and initiatives that are being re-profiled. It's not as though there's a very clear Yukon piece, or a piece for any particular area.

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Maybe this is a chance to highlight the upcoming study, which I hope will take place in the spring with some travel to Yukon. I'm looking forward to hearing in detail much more from Yukon-based witnesses, and also from the department about the critical state of Yukon chinook salmon, with a view to accelerating our pathway toward solutions.

I'm probably out of time, so I'll stop there.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

You are right on the mark. Thank you, Mr. Hanley.

We'll now go to Madame Desbiens for two and a half minutes or less, please.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I find that interesting because each of us often speaks on behalf of a number of fishers who have little or no access to people from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

I know the department is very large and it's complicated, but would it be possible to set up more systems that take into account the different types and areas of fisheries, and the movement of resources?

When a North Atlantic right whale is sighted, the entire fishery is shut down, even though we know very well that certain types of fishing take place in areas where the North Atlantic right whale never goes, because the water isn't deep enough.

The principle is the same for capelin, and I think everyone is now aware of the capelin history. A date is set for the opening of the fishery, and it's opened on that date, even though it's known that the small capelin fishery, which is barely commercial, has nothing to do with the big fishery off Newfoundland and Labrador.

These are examples to consider in making decisions. These decisions must take into account more situations, types of fishing or fishing areas that require more consideration than others. This would perhaps allow some fishermen to save their skin.

I just want to know if it's possible to do this, even though it's complicated.

[Annette Gibbons]

That's what we're trying to do, yes. We do an overall scientific analysis for each species, but also for the different fishing areas we regulate. I'm speaking generally. As part of that scientific analysis, we obviously try to take into account other factors, such as the characteristics of each species and their movements. Our goal—

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

I'm sorry to interrupt, but I only have 15 seconds left—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Madame Desbiens, you have actually gone over. You've gone into the mines. You have to set your clock right next time.

We'll now go to Ms. Barron for two and a half minutes, please.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

I appreciate that there have been a few questions brought forward around the really important recommendations we brought forward as a committee around marine cargo spills.

As you know, this was a study that I had brought forward as a motion for us to look at in light of the MV Zim Kingston spill, with over 100 containers that got lost at sea. I believe only four were retrieved. Regardless, a very minimal number of them were actually retrieved, leaving the rest of them afloat out in the water.

One of the recommendations that was brought forward was around the Coast Guard working alongside....

One second, while I see if I can get the actual wording. I can't find it.

The point is that it was around the Coast Guard working alongside others to look at the integration of tracking devices on containers so that we can more adequately locate containers in light of a spill.

I recognize this is a reactionary piece to a bigger problem that needs a lot of the preventive mechanisms put into place. However, what has been done? Has any consultation or work been done to develop and implement a tracking device system on containers as they are being shipped?

[Annette Gibbons]

I will ask Chris to comment on that.

[Chris Henderson]

Thank you very much for the question.

The short answer is that tracking devices and the placement of tracking devices in sea containers is a global challenge. It is a challenge that in the Canadian government context is actually negotiated through the International Maritime Organization, which falls under the purview of Transport Canada. The Coast Guard doesn't actually have a role to play in negotiating the tracking of sea containers.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Thank you.

I'm looking at the recommendation and the actual wording in there. Of course, the Coast Guard would be involved in some capacity in it, but I can provide further clarification.

The overall theme within the report and the recommendations is to ensure that there is work being done to have “a joint spill response” in place, a “container spill response”, that ensures timely responses and coordinated responses using local knowledge, the Coast Guard and all the resources that are there.

I did hear a comment on the responsibility being on the shipping companies, which is a big part of the problem that we're seeing currently, for multiple reasons. I'm wondering what actions have been taken to move forward with having this joint response plan in place so that we don't have the same issues that we did with the Zim Kingstonmoving forward.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

I'd ask for that to come in writing, Ms. Barron, because you've gone way over your two and a half minutes in that question.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

We'll now go to Mr. Perkins for five minutes or less, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have just a quick request for a written response on the follow-up for Mr. Arnold.

Can the department provide a written response on the invasive species budget in terms of what “equal” means and, if you could, maybe the last five or six years of the data between the provinces that illustrates that it's equal? Thank you.

I was reviewing the performance measures that the department set out for the last year that's available. I think there were 70. I was surprised to learn that one of the measures of success on which the department claims success was the increasing levels of aquaculture production. An increase in that was actually seen as a positive, and you exceeded the thing. Obviously the department doesn't have a lot to do with what actually gets produced in the net, but I was surprised to see that in there, as opposed to, say, IFMPs with a rebuilding plan, which is not a target that DFO has.

Could you explain that?

[Annette Gibbons]

Our indicators will be based on when we take new initiatives to cabinet—for example, for various new programs or increases to programs. We will develop indicators or update our departmental indicators to reflect that, so that would reflect government policy—

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

It is government policy, then, to increase the production in aquaculture, but it's not government policy to have a rebuilding plan for stocks that are in distress?

[Annette Gibbons]

Well, under the act, we are of course mandated to protect stocks. Many parts of the department's work are built around doing that. I can't speak to the specific indicator related to that, but we have to—

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

Well, I've asked the department to take another look at why those things that are most crucial—rebuilding plans, rebuilding the stocks and issues around actually knowing what are the natural and the fishing mortality of stocks—are not targets for the department, but things like increasing aquaculture are.

I'd like to go on to enforcement.

In my riding, a couple of people in the lobster brokerage industry were charged by DFO and convicted of selling undersized lobster. A very small fine was issued by the court. They sold about a million dollars' worth of lobster and got a fine of about $50,000. The next day after the charge, they started to sell illegal lobster again. DFO came in and again charged them. They've been charged again recently.

Part of the problem for the province is that the charges are to the individuals and not to the companies. Will DFO start looking at charging the companies where this is happening?

[Annette Gibbons]

We work within the laws that we're mandated under. I can't speak to that specific question.

I can ask Doug Wentzell from our regional office to—

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

Maybe you can provide a written response to that so I can turn the rest of my time over to Mr. Epp.

[Annette Gibbons]

Yes, sure.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to direct my questions to ADM and CFO Goodyear.

When the spring 2022 budget was released and passed, the Great Lakes Fishery Commission stated in a news release, and I quote: “With today's Canadian budget, the two nations are now funding the Commission at [an] agreed-to level with the goal of protecting and improving the $7 billion Great Lakes fishery.”

Yet the U.S. officials walked out of the meeting, so my question is this: Has the Great Lakes Fishery Commission set their budget for 2023?