Fisheries Committee on March 23rd, 2026

[Joanne Thompson, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Over the past decade, it's been $1.5 billion.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

It's $1.5 billion...?

[Joanne Thompson, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Yes. It's significant. We know how important small craft harbours are across the country, from coast to coast to coast, and as a government, we're committed to supporting the harbours.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Minister, you referenced the renewal of the Atlantic fisheries fund. I'm not sure if the numbers were attached. Is it something you could talk about at the committee this morning?

[Joanne Thompson, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

I can't give specifics, but what I can say is that the funding has been renewed.

I was in Boston at the time, and my colleagues from the Atlantic region and Quebec were there, so we had a brief meeting. I can share that there was a strong sense of co-operation and collaboration, as well as an understanding that this funding is not a continuation of the past five years, but an opportunity to look at the industry today and, in understanding what has worked well, what we need to focus on. Then, collectively and in partnership—it's really important to understand that it's a partnership—we address the opportunities and the concerns of this moment.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Thank you, Minister.

I know there was a lot of lobbying. There was a lot of concern amongst provinces, fishers and fish organizations about the AFF and whether it would be renewed.

Was there a similar fund within the department, prior to the establishment of the AFF a number of years ago?

[Joanne Thompson, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

I looked to a colleague and was told no.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

This is all new money dedicated to the fishery, in collaboration with the provinces, in a host of areas. That's a critical piece of maintaining areas of market access, as well as research on the key fisheries.

When you were in P.E.I. with me, we visited the school that trains the protection personnel within DFO. Conservation protection is the foundation of a successful fishery, regardless of where it is. I've noticed a change in direction by the department on enforcement, on charges being laid.

I asked a question awhile back, but I don't think the question was correct. Can you elaborate on the resources that have been dedicated to this branch of your department and the number of additional personnel there after the department in conservation protection was significantly downsized by the previous government?

[Joanne Thompson, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Thank you. It's an important question.

Some of the details can be addressed in the second hour, but I can tell you, when I came into this role a year ago, it was a priority. Working with the department, we have moved forward to support the very specific policy of authorized fishing only, period. It was wonderful to visit the centre in P.E.I. and meet with the cadets. It was an impressive group from across the country. Their dedication was inspiring.

When I travel—and I have travelled the country from coast to coast to coast—I meet with fisheries harvesters in each area and thank them for the work they do. It's often behind the scenes, but they are making a difference. Collectively, it ensures that we have a safe and peaceful fishery.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Mr. Morrissey.

We'll now turn to Mrs. Marilène Gill.

Welcome, Mrs. Gill. You have the floor for six minutes.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I too would like to thank the minister, the deputy minister, the senior assistant deputy minister and the chief financial officer for joining us.

I have several questions to ask, of course. Ten minutes go by very quickly, so I'll ask my questions quickly and would like quick answers. We can follow up in writing, if necessary.

You talked about the issues of innovation, diversification and conservation protection, and rightly so. You noted that Canada is internationally recognized for its sustainable fisheries. However, the budget proposes cuts to the Maurice Lamontagne Institute, which means cuts are being made in the science sector. I remember in 2015, we welcomed the supplementary budgets because cuts had been made, and now we're going through budget cuts once more.

I wonder what motivates these cuts, especially since you prioritized what I talked about earlier.

[Joanne Thompson, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Thank you. I appreciate the question.

Let me be quite clear: We value science. Science management is the backbone of all the decisions, so there are no cuts in science. We look at processes. We modernize, and there are new technologies we can employ. However, in no way is this a step back from a science-based fishery management.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, QC]

Although budgets will change and staff will be cut, you say you remain just as committed to science and that it’s important to you.

Is this the first round of cuts? Are there cuts being made in institutes similar to the Maurice Lamontagne Institute, whether in the Pacific or Atlantic region?

[Joanne Thompson, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

The departmental officials with me can answer more specific questions, but at this point, I don't want to speak to specific HR shifts. However, I will continue to reassure you that science-based management in the fishery is a priority, and this will continue.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, QC]

Along the same line, cuts were made to the sentinel fisheries program in Quebec on February 6, for example—in your province of Newfoundland and Labrador, it's cod. These programs were created because scientific data, such as multispecies surveys, were insufficient. Now, the government is making cuts in these programs. Obviously, this affects the science sector, but also food security for communities. We also need to consider economic activity. Without that, economic development is obviously impossible.

So I’m wondering why, even though it's been done elsewhere before, you came to this highly damaging decision without even notifying the associations and fishing groups. You say you visit every region to discuss fisheries issues, so I'd like you to come to the Basse‑Côte‑Nord, for example, where this decision will have, and already has had, serious consequences on the fishing industry. I think this decision goes against science, is counterproductive for the people and jeopardizes food security for communities already severely affected not only because of what they're going through, but also because they live in isolated areas.

[Joanne Thompson, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

I think there's an opportunity to ask officials in the second hour. I want to reassure you that science is still core to this work. We can update science management. It's prudent to do that based on emerging technologies. I also want to reassure you that we remain in consultation and dialogue with harvesters in industry. In no way is it a surprise to industry when something changes, but it is about understanding that we have to evolve. There are improvements in how we collect data, and we need to ensure that our scientific information is aligned with the best possible information. Please let me reassure you it is always in consultation.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, QC]

Madam Minister, it's not by cutting funding for this program that we'll have more information, quite the opposite.

You talked about consultation. I consulted with people, and no, they weren’t informed. There were no consultations and no information was provided. They got a letter, and it took them completely by surprise. I’m also surprised. You tell people they can rest assured, but I'm not reassured at all, because you said you didn’t know cuts had been made to these programs and that people everywhere were feeling the impacts. That’s why we need to look into this, dig a little deeper and visit the communities dealing with the consequences.

Let me give you another example. You might tell me to ask my question in the second hour, but I know government departments are interconnected. Take Radiométéo, for example. I don’t know if fishermen were consulted. Cuts were made to this tiny $4 million program. That's nickel-and-diming. Fishermen told me network access and information are not available everywhere. Anticosti comes to mind, for example.

I have to ask myself why those cuts are being made, once again, without consulting the public, without really considering the potential consequences of eliminating such a service, a service offered primarily to keep fishermen safe.

You might say that this isn’t within your department’s purview, but I think it's still the ministers' responsibility to talk to each other and figure out the potential impacts of their decisions, and what new initiatives to introduce to replace this program.

[Joanne Thompson, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

I'm happy for the officials to be more specific, but I will reassure you again that science is the backbone of what we do. The science management evolves based on emerging technologies. The need to remain in dialogue and communication is critical. I was in Quebec City recently, and Montreal, continuing to meet with harvesters from the region. I will be visiting the Magdalens in the next couple of weeks. I continue to visit communities. Processes are in place so people can feel they've been heard. I'm happy to have the officials speak to this in the second hour, but certainly communication and relationships are critical—science is a backbone—in concert with harvesters and industries. In no way is this being shifted or compromised.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Mrs. Gill.

We've come to the end of the first round.

We're going to start the second round with Mr. Arnold for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Minister and officials, for being here.

Minister, you stated that you value science, and science is the background of what we do. It's widely accepted that monitoring is essential to the decisions you make.

Canadians are concerned by cuts you have planned for the coming year. In a 2025 academic report, researcher Emma Atkinson found that almost two-thirds of historically monitored salmon populations have no reported estimates for 2014 to 2023, the worst decade for data since broad-scale kit surveys began in the 1950s, yet you are slashing more monitoring. This is dangerously reckless. Monitoring is an essential component of the wild salmon policy and in determining sustainability, which you also talked about the ambassadors being amazed at. Would you say that monitoring is essential to your decisions? If so, why are you slashing fisheries monitoring?

[Joanne Thompson, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Thank you for the question.

Let me reassure you that we are not in any way stepping back from science, monitoring, and understanding stock health, but we can't—

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

There are huge budget cuts for monitoring.

[Joanne Thompson, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

We have shifted to different types of monitoring—in-stream monitoring, for example—but in no way are we cutting science from the work we do.

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

You are, though.

[Joanne Thompson, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

It is appropriate that we evolve—