Fisheries Committee on May 1st, 2023

[Jennifer Buie]

I actually don't know why we have a picture of a whitecoat. You're right; it's a very short part of a seal's life.

I can follow up and work with communications on that.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Thank you, Ms. Buie, for your answer.

We just had testimony from a Norwegian scientist, and he talked about Norway's framework for managing not just pinnipeds but marine mammals—seals and whales. It's very important to them, and their fishery is so much more productive than Canada's.

Why can your department not have a similar policy and have a framework for the management of pinnipeds? Why don't we have it?

[Jennifer Buie]

Thank you for the question, Mr. Chair.

We do have a framework for managing pinnipeds. It's part of the sustainable management of all of our fisheries in Canada. We want to ensure there's a harvest that continues to be accessible to our sealing community. That's why we apply the precautionary approach to ensure that our seals are managed sustainably.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Thank you, Ms. Buie, but it seems that Norway has a bit of a different management approach, in that they look at how high the population should be and how low it should be, whereas our management approach is to look at making sure that our population is not too high.

I'm looking back at the last meeting. The main objective in the management of pinnipeds is to keep the population healthy, and it looks like it's a success story in terms of the health of seal populations. However, the Norwegian scientist we just heard from—Mr. Haug—said that seals and cod prey on basically the same species. Would you think that if cod populations are low and seal populations are high—if one goes up, one goes down—that's a factor in your wanting to increase the health of the cod stocks off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador?

[Jennifer Buie]

I think that's certainly a consideration we take into account when we're making decisions around total allowable catches for our seal harvest. I mean, that is part of our science examination of both seals and cod and where there might be a relationship.

Perhaps I can turn to my colleague Dr. Nadeau to add to that response.

[Simon Nadeau, Director, Marine Mammals and Biodiversity Science, Department of Fisheries and Oceans]

Sure.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm going to turn my time over to Mr. Arnold.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

You have two minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm going to use my time right now to move a motion that was put on notice on April 28:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee undertake a study of one two-hour meeting to examine how the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, within its role as the machinery of government agent for the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, allocates resources to the Great Lakes Fishery Commission in execution of Canada's commitments under the 1954 Convention on Great Lakes Fisheries, and the working relationship between the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Great Lakes Fishery Commission in delivery of the convention’s five major charges for the commission;

that the committee call senior officials from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Great Lakes Fishery Commission to appear as witnesses concurrently;

that the committee present its conclusions and recommendations in a report to the House; and

that, pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee request that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.

I bring this motion forward, Mr. Chair, because we have been basically playing a tennis match between what we hear from DFO and what is actually delivered through the mechanism right now, with not all of the funds going to the Great Lakes Fishery Commission.

We've heard testimony from DFO officials and heard further from the Great Lakes Fishery Commission that their initial testimony was incorrect. We brought DFO back in. They said something further. The Great Lakes Fishery Commission had a counter to that.

We as a committee have already spent I think.... Individual members have been going back and forth a lot on this, even in this committee meeting. I propose that we have them both in at the same time so we can minimize the impact on our work as a committee and hopefully work towards a solution to this situation, which has become such an irritant that our U.S. counterparts in the Great Lakes Fishery Commission have withdrawn from the budgetary process.

I believe Mr. Epp has further information on this, if he'd like to add it.

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

Yes.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I could speak ad nauseam to the series of frustrating communications that have come from the Great Lakes Fishery Commission's Canadian section. Most recently, I've been corresponding with the American section, which has reached out to me as well.

The united council of advisers, on April 25, published a media release and a statement that chronicled three years of frustration with the Canadian government, initially over financing. Actually, what's interesting now is that the pressure has built to the point that the Minister of Finance addressed Canada's shortfall, which had been ongoing since 2001, only to have it not flow through to the Great Lakes Fishery Commission.

I have much more I could say, but I'm hoping we can deal with this and not waste a lot of the committee's time.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Go ahead, Mr. Hardie.

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

Yes, thank you.

I share the frustration and the uncertainty around what we've heard, because a former colleague of ours is working with the commission and has been critical of Canada's response and its follow-through. That said, though, we'd like to propose an amendment to Mr. Arnold's motion that we undertake a study of a minimum of three two-hour meetings, and that we invite the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the chair of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission to appear as witnesses separately, not concurrently. We think there could be a far more productive review and analysis, rather than having the two of them getting into a sparring match in front of our very eyes. That's the amendment we're proposing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Okay.

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

Can I ask a question?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Yes, Mr. Perkins.

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

Thank you, Mr. Hardie.

Why three? Do you have some other witnesses, in addition to those two, you'd like to hear from?

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

I think we should hear from our folks as well as from Global Affairs, because Global Affairs has been cited by the commission as perhaps a better management focus for this relationship, given that the U.S. Secretary of State is the one who looks at things from the American side.

Let's hear from our people. Let's hear from the U.S. side and then bring our people back in to really sort out what we've heard and get a response from them to that so we get a complete understanding.

We would be open to a two-meeting session if that's going to be sufficient, but we think three is probably more productive for really getting to the root of this, rather than having, as they say, a bun toss between the two sides, which we've witnessed all along.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Go ahead, Mr. Epp.

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

I'm curious about why that length of time is needed, because the advisers and the commission have written for three years and have complained that there has been no government response. Do you think the government doesn't know what's going on? Is that the issue? The commission has written a press release outlining eight points of correspondence and has had radio silence in return.

I'm trying to understand if it's ignorance of the issue you're trying to get at. Not having spent a lot of time on this committee, I certainly have a wealth of information that I've received.

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

On this side, I would certainly want Vance Badawey, our MP, who's been very vocal on the issues in the Great Lakes, to participate with us, because like you, he's well invested in this.

I get the sense from what we've seen indirectly over the past Lord knows how many months that there's a disagreement about the value in kind, for instance, of work the Canadian side is doing. You may take issue with this, but on the government side, we're not as heavily invested as you've been. In order for us to really do our due diligence, we need to maybe take a few steps that you've already taken.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Go ahead, Mr. Arnold.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm not sure at which stage we are at. I proposed a motion. Mr. Hardie proposed an amendment, so we're discussing his amendment.

In response to Mr. Hardie, I note we have a very full agenda already between now and June, and it's even full after the summer recess. We propose one meeting to get the two parties in the same room at the same time, because we continuously play this back-and-forth of he said this, they said that, they said this and they said that.

To make the best use of our committee's valuable time, I believe it's very important that we have both parties in the same room so we can reduce the amount of back-and-forth that we've continuously seen on this issue for a number of years now. Even your party members have seen that. Mr. Badawey is well aware of what's taken place here. I'd be more than happy to have him as one of your committee members during this study. I think he could brief all of your party members quite quickly on what's taken place.

I'll move a subamendment to Mr. Hardie's amendment. We've proposed one meeting; you've proposed three. I propose a subamendment to your amendment that we compromise at two meetings, but we have DFO officials and the Great Lakes Fishery Commission appear concurrently.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

First I have to go to Mr. Perkins, Mr. Bachrach and Mr. Epp, and then I'll go back to Mr. Hardie.

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

I'm speaking to the subamendment to the amendment. Is that what I'm speaking to?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Yes.