Fisheries Committee on Oct. 26th, 2023

[Annette Gibbons]

Obviously, the department provides advice for what we're...the positions, and we work with the secretariat extensively.

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

It's the four commissioners who speak.

As I understand it right now, there are negotiations for a memorandum of understanding between the DFO and the commissioners.

[Annette Gibbons]

Yes.

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

Is the DFO prepared to sign that memorandum of agreement, as opposed to a memorandum of understanding?

[Annette Gibbons]

I'm not sure of the.... That's not an issue I'm aware of—whether it's “agreement” or “understanding”. That technical difference—

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

One is binding on the ministry and one is not.

Are you prepared to sign a binding agreement with the commission?

[Annette Gibbons]

I'm going to take that back.

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

Thank you. If you could table that response, that would be great.

[Annette Gibbons]

Yes.

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

Finally, why won't the U.S. commissioners meet with the Canadian commissioners at the commission?

[Annette Gibbons]

I can't speak for them, sir.

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

Could you provide an answer in writing?

[Annette Gibbons]

I'm not sure I'll be able to give you any more than that.

We're in extensive discussions on the business we share with the commission. That is going very well, but I cannot speak for the American commissioners.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll turn the rest of my time over to Mr. Arnold.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Mr. Arnold, you have four and a half minutes.

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

Thank you.

Thank you for appearing here today. It's always good to hear from the officials.

I believe this question would probably go to Mr. Pelletier, or perhaps Mr. Burns.

We constantly hear from harvesters who are unable to fish because of stock assessments not being done due to vessel maintenance problems, vessel breakdowns or shortage of staff. This has a huge economic impact. It's a huge impact on the fishermen and processors who are losing their jobs. These breakdowns and staff shortages surely can't be because of the billions of dollars that have been poured into the Department of Fisheries and Oceans over the last eight years.

Why does DFO continually fail to provide stock assessments that would allow fishermen to harvest their catch?

[Annette Gibbons]

We certainly work very hard to ensure we can do all the stock assessments the harvesters rely on. We have had issues, for sure, and we work through those issues as they arise.

We are obviously working very hard on a broader fleet renewal strategy. We have had new vessels delivered, including fishery science vessels for stock assessments. Obviously, when we have problems with particular vessels—for example, older vessels that are not yet replaced—we do everything we can to find a solution. In some cases, that means taking another vessel and reprioritizing what we do where.

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

You're referring to vessel issues, breakdowns and so on, but what about the staffing shortages we also hear about? Vessels aren't able to sail, and we're also relying on foreign countries to do stock assessments on Canada's fish stocks. Why, after eight years, has this government failed to address these issues?

[Annette Gibbons]

We have lots of international agreements with partner countries, whereby we share ocean areas and fish. Many countries fish in particular areas, so we do joint science with lots of different countries, given that fisheries are often a shared resource.

In terms of staff shortages, sir, we certainly are aware of the complements we need, and we work really hard on staffing. There are times we don't have the full complement needed to sail on a particular mission, but we really do a lot of planning—both in the Coast Guard, for what is needed on that side, and in DFO—to try to have the staff we need in the places where we need them.

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

Thank you.

On another topic, it was announced yesterday that the cod stock assessment has now been changed from the critical zone to, I believe, cautious. The Premier of Newfoundland referred to “new historical data”. Can you define what “new historical data” would be? I believe most people believe that historical data is not new. Can you describe not necessarily the cod situation, but what new historical data.... Why wasn't it used eight years ago?

[Annette Gibbons]

The change in the assessment of cod is based on a change in the model used to assess the stock.

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

Again, I said “new historical data”.

[Annette Gibbons]

That includes—

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

What is “new historical data”?

[Annette Gibbons]

I can't speak to the premier's use of “new historical data”. Historical data is historical data, but it is the use of certain historical data in the model. Obviously, the model is based on past data as well as current data. The new model has some different data from the past.