Fisheries Committee on March 23rd, 2026

[Niall O'Dea]

As I noted in response to an earlier question, there is a series of items reflected in the main estimates and other questions about programs that have received long-standing temporary funding in the past.... In some cases, they remain to be made and will be reflected in further decision-making, and if so, in future estimates.

[Aaron Gunn, Conservative, North Island—Powell River, BC]

As far as you know, no decision has been made relating to the funding of individual hatcheries.

[Niall O'Dea]

To my knowledge, no.

[Aaron Gunn, Conservative, North Island—Powell River, BC]

We're jumping all over the place, so I appreciate your staying with me.

This year, the International Pacific Halibut Commission set Canada's halibut quotas at historic lows—down more than 7%—yet the American allocation remained unchanged. Why is that?

[Niall O'Dea]

I'll turn to my colleague, Mark Waddell.

[Mark Waddell, Director General, Fisheries Resource Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans]

Thank you.

Those negotiations proved to be challenging for Canada. I admit that. A reduction was necessary based on the science advice.

[Aaron Gunn, Conservative, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Do you mean an overall reduction?

[Mark Waddell]

Yes, an overall coast-wide reduction was in the cards, based on the scientific advice provided to both Canada and the United States.

[Aaron Gunn, Conservative, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Why did the reduction fall on Canada? Why was it not split evenly?

[Mark Waddell]

It is because there proved to be very challenging discussions with our American counterparts.

[Aaron Gunn, Conservative, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Did they threaten Canadian access to their seafood market?

[Mark Waddell]

They did indeed.

[Aaron Gunn, Conservative, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Does it seem as though we just rolled over and took it, then? You said these were challenging negotiations, but it seems as though we took 100% of the cut and the Americans took nothing. That doesn't sound much like a negotiation.

[Mark Waddell]

Those negotiations will continue over the course of the coming months and years. We expect that we will not necessarily have the same outcomes in future negotiations.

[Aaron Gunn, Conservative, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Okay.

I have another question.

We talked a bit about this. Obviously, there's a difficult financial situation at the department and in the whole government. About nine years ago, the government set out on the 30 by 30 initiative to create a massive network of marine parks. Nearly a decade later, the only thing that's been created, as far as I can tell, is a lot of uncertainty in the industry for fishermen, their families and coastal communities.

Do we have an estimate on how much has been spent on this initiative to date?

[Patrick Amyot]

Thank you for the question.

I don't have the information right now, but I'm happy to provide it in writing.

[Aaron Gunn, Conservative, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Mr. Gunn.

I'll take the next five-minute round.

I want to pick up on a line of questioning by my colleague Mr. Morrissey about the use of drones in the work of fisheries enforcement.

I certainly experienced, in my riding, not having access to the people on the water. I was hoping you might speak a bit more about how these tools are being used on the west coast for enforcement against illegal fishing.

[Peter Lambertucci]

Thank you very much for the question.

If fishery officers aren't visible, it doesn't mean they're not engaged in doing their enforcement, monitoring and inspection work. Drones are great examples of that. This work is taking place on the west coast, in the Pacific region, where we have a number of pilot operators who fly drones for that purpose. In terms of our presence, we are on land, we're on the sea and we're in the air. If it's not a drone in the Pacific region, it could be an aircraft, a high-visibility patrol or a walking patrol. There are a number of tools at our disposal for us to use.

I'd also like to talk about the interdepartmental dependencies we have on every coast. It is not just DFO's C and P doing the work. We have a number of interdependencies with partners that facilitate this work.

Again, when we're not visible, we're still very much engaged in quite a profound way.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much.

I'm going to switch gears.

The estimates have a budget for the support of asset disposal programming, with an increase of 278%.

This may be a question for Mr. O'Dea.

What specific programs...vessel removals or operational targets are going to be met with this? Particularly, does DFO have measures focused on things like abandoned and derelict vessels as part of this increased funding?

[Niall O'Dea]

Thank you for the question.

DFO, as colleagues understand, is responsible for a fairly massive infrastructure nationally with respect to small craft harbours, other facilities, equipment, etc. The asset disposal function will be for activities related to the disposal and management of things like vessels that need to be decommissioned. It may be for components of harbour infrastructure that need to be decommissioned or replaced, or for other assets, such as the equipment found in scientific laboratories, that may have come to its end of life, at a certain stage, and needs to be replaced.

I can turn to the CFO if there's any more detail on this, but I think that's a high-level response to the question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you.

Is there anything you'd like to add?

[Patrick Amyot]

No. I have nothing to add, unless you have a specific question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you.

Ms. Garrah, you mentioned that DFO is winding down research and monitoring activities that have been deemed to have achieved their objectives—or for which alternative data sources exist. There's also been discussion about using new methods. I think digital logs and artificial intelligence were mentioned, but I've also read about the use of eDNA in scientific monitoring.

I was hoping you might speak a bit more to that type of work, whether it's to supplement or to replace some of the work being done through more traditional methods.

[Joanne Garrah]

Thank you for the question.

Within science, we continue to evolve. We continue to look for opportunities to introduce new technologies. Environmental DNA, or eDNA, as you referred to, is an important component of that. We have certainly used it in a number of different settings, and we hope to continue to explore different opportunities for it, whether that's through stock assessments or trying to identify information for species at risk or for invasive species.

There are a lot of different scenarios in which we can use the technology to take micro amounts of DNA that might be available in the ecosystem to try to amplify the information and use it for some of the information we assess within science. This may be for stock assessments or, as I said, the presence of invasive species—or to try to get a sense of whether there is loss of species through species at risk. This is a technology that we will continue to explore and invest in.

Artificial intelligence, as you referenced, is similar. We continue to explore, within the science program, a lot of different opportunities to introduce this technology to improve our science assessment processes across the board.