Fisheries Committee on March 9th, 2026

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to welcome the witnesses who are with us today.

My first question is for Ms. Gaudet.

On February 5, I sent a letter to the Minister of Fisheries, Joanne Thompson, regarding the announced cuts at the Maurice Lamontagne Institute, located in Mont-Joli, in my riding. Despite a reminder on February 12 on the floor of the House and a new email sent out on March 5, I have yet to receive a response.

Can you confirm today that there will be job cuts at the Maurice Lamontagne Institute, which falls under the Department of Fisheries and Oceans? If so, how many positions would be affected?

[Céline Gaudet]

Thank you for the question.

I don't have the details with me today. If I may, I would like to answer you in writing.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Ms. Gaudet, in the interest of transparency for the employees and the people in my riding, I would appreciate it if you could send a written response regarding the following points.

First, I would like you to provide us with the exact number of positions affected, broken down by job category: researchers, scientific staff, technical staff, administrative staff, contract staff and casual staff.

Second, please tell us what kind of cuts are being made, whether they involve the elimination of positions, non-renewal of contracts, hiring freezes or other measures.

Third, I would like you to distinguish between permanent positions and precarious or term positions.

Fourth, I would like to get a breakdown of the cuts by program, branch and research mandate, including applied basic research and scientific monitoring activities.

Fifth, please share with us the specific timeline for the implementation of the decisions as well as their time frame, including whether further rounds of cuts are anticipated beyond the current fiscal year.

Sixth, I would like to know the reasons given, including any budgetary, strategic or organizational analysis that led to these choices.

Seventh, I would like to know the anticipated impact on scientific capacity, the continuity of research mandates and the next generation of scientists.

Eighth, I would like to know what mitigation or support measures are planned for the affected workers.

Ninth, I would like to know what consultations, if any, were held with staff, scientific branches or union representatives.

Tenth and finally, I would like assurances about the Maurice Lamontagne Institute's future and the compatibility of the cuts with federal obligations toward scientific monitoring, the protection of marine ecosystems and sustainable resource management.

Can you commit today to providing that information in writing to the committee as soon as possible?

[Céline Gaudet]

We'll be following up on this issue, of course.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Thank you.

Ms. Gaudet, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans regularly refers to science to justify its decisions. Yet if cuts are reducing scientific capacity at centres such as the Maurice Lamontagne Institute, how can you guarantee that decisions will continue to take into account the best available data?

[Céline Gaudet]

Thank you for the question.

I'll ask my colleague, Mr. Vigneault, to answer this question.

[Bernard Vigneault]

In terms of the cuts implemented, we made sure to maintain the core capacity needed to support the department's decisions on fisheries in particular. We can use certain tools that basically provide the same information, but in a more effective and less costly manner. In the case of fisheries, we prioritized this area and we didn't make any major cuts. It's directly tied to our capacity to support decisions, as you said. Despite the decisions made regarding cuts, we're still in a position to support decisions on fisheries.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Thank you for these clarifications, Mr. Vigneault.

Ms. Gaudet, I'll turn to you. You're a director. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans plans to cut 724 full‑time positions by 2028‑29. How many of these cuts could affect scientific capacity?

[Céline Gaudet]

Thank you for the question.

In terms of scientific capacity, science remains a top priority for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Again, if you're looking for specific figures, I can get back to you in writing. That said, I can tell you that science is a priority at the department. We'll find every way to ensure that our programs continue. It will depend on our resources. However, as Mr. Vigneault just said, we'll make sure that all our tools are used and that we have the right tools to make the proper decisions.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Ms. Gaudet, if science is a top priority for your department, why are you authorizing cuts to a scientific research institute such as the Maurice Lamontagne Institute? Please explain.

[Céline Gaudet]

Thank you for the question.

As I said, the science is there and it's part of our program. There may be some cuts. We'll give you the data, as you requested. We can respond to you that way.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Ms. Gaudet, who made the decision to go ahead and implement these cuts in the scientific sphere, particularly at the Maurice Lamontagne Institute in our area?

[Céline Gaudet]

Thank you for the question.

I would like to ask my colleague, Mr. Vigneault, to chime in if he has anything to add to my response.

The decisions about programs are made at the department level. It's a process. It isn't one thing in particular. Decisions are made based on all sorts of factors. We must ensure that the department's mandates are upheld and fulfilled.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you. Your time is up. If you would like to add any comments, please send them to us by email.

That finishes our first round of questions.

We're going into the second round, which is the five-minute round, starting with Mr. Arnold.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all the officials for being here today.

This gets quite technical. I'm referring to a document that was prepared for us by the library analysts. It talks about how “Continued U.S. catches affect the estimated timeframe needed to grow the stock above the LRP with a 75% likelihood”. It says, “in a scenario with no American or Canadian fishing, ‘the minimum time to grow the stock to above the LRP with a 75% likelihood was estimated at 6 to 7 years’”, and “in a scenario with American removals of 3,639 mt (the 2023 commercial TAC), the rebuilding time ‘would increase to between 7 and 9 years.’”

That sounds reasonable, but then the document we were provided says, “Therefore, DFO estimates the ‘minimum time required for the stock to rebuild above the LRP with a 75% likelihood in the absence of Canadian fishing...under prevailing productivity conditions’ to be nine years.” Then it says, “DFO ‘will aim to rebuild the stock to the rebuilding target in 18 years’ or twice the estimated minimum time required to rebuilt.”

Can you explain why we've jumped to 18 years in what we're provided?

[Bernard Vigneault]

The minimal rebuilding plan is based on no Canadian fishing. That's the nine years that was last estimated. When we take into account the bait fishery that was authorized and so on, that's where we get the larger rebuilding plan.

What's important for this stock is that we have a very definitive impact on fishing and the timelines for recovery. We can see, for example, at the current TAC for the bait fishery of 500 tonnes, that we have a 75% chance of the stock biomass increasing in the next two years. If we start increasing the commercial TAC or if the removals from the U.S. increase, that will reduce the probability of the growth of the stock.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC]

So much depends on the U.S. continuing to take from the total allowable catch; is that correct?

[Bernard Vigneault]

Yes. As I mentioned earlier, we account for the U.S. catch in our stock assessment. The U.S. does the same. When they did their last assessment, they accounted for the 500 tonnes.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC]

Thank you.

I want to move on to the letter that was sent to the minister on February 22, 2023, including the 28 recommendations. We probably aren't going to get a chance to go through all 28 recommendations today, but the first recommendation was to “restore all standard science and assessment activities for all fisheries management decisions, especially moratoriums and closures.”

Have those standard science and assessment activities been fully restored?

[Bernard Vigneault]

Yes, they have been fully restored. We have since done the annual sampling for the stock assessment—the egg and larvae survey. We've done the stock assessment every two years, and as we mentioned earlier in our introduction, we're even doing it annually this year to account for the change in the U.S. We're doing that along with consistent work in research to address the concern and the recommendation from this committee on mackerel.

Along with that work, we have started the collaboration with industry and the collaboration with academia to look at the reproduction of the stock, the predation of the stock and so on.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC]

Okay. Thank you.

Before I run out of time, I'd like to ask Ms. Gaudet if she could please provide the committee with a summary of the actions taken and/or completed on the 2023 recommendations in that letter.

Could you provide a summary to this committee on what actions have been taken and/or completed on that?

[Céline Gaudet]

I will defer this question to my colleague Mr. Williams.

[Todd Williams]

Yes, we will.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Mr. Arnold.

We're going to Mr. Cormier for five minutes.