THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND OCEANS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, May 3, 2022
The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans met with videoconference this day at 9 a.m. [ET] to study the federal government’s current and evolving policy framework for managing Canada’s fisheries and oceans including maritime safety; and the subject matter of those elements contained in Part 7 of Bill S-6, An Act respecting regulatory modernization.
Senator Fabian Manning (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good morning, my name is Fabian Manning, I am a senator from Newfoundland and Labrador, and I have the pleasure of chairing the meeting this morning.
This morning, we are conducting a meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. I will let the members of the committee introduce themselves since we are here in person.
Senator Ataullahjan: Senator Salma Ataullahjan, Ontario.
Senator Francis: Senator Brian Francis, Prince Edward Island.
Senator Ringuette: Senator Pierrette Ringuette, New Brunswick.
Senator McPhedran: Senator Marilou McPhedran, Manitoba.
Senator Kutcher: Senator Stan Kutcher, Nova Scotia.
Senator Ravalia: Senator Mohamed Ravalia, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Cormier: Senator René Cormier, New Brunswick.
Senator Busson: Senator Bev Busson, British Columbia.
Senator Quinn: Senator Jim Quinn, New Brunswick.
The Chair: Thank you, senators. Colleagues, the committee is meeting under its general mandate for its first panel to welcome the Honourable Joyce Catherine Murray, P.C., M.P., Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and Canadian Coast Guard. She is joined by her officials from Fisheries and Oceans Canada: Timothy Sargent, Deputy Minister; and Niall O’Dea, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic Policy, Fisheries and Oceans Canada.
I also wish to welcome other officials joining us by video conference: Mario Pelletier, Commissioner, Canadian Coast Guard; and, from Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Alexandra Dostal, Assistant Deputy Minister, Aquatic Ecosystems; Arran McPherson, Assistant Deputy Minister, Ecosystems and Ocean Science; Adam Burns, Acting Assistant Deputy Minister, Fisheries Harbour Management; Rebecca Reid, Regional Director General, Pacific Region; Doug Wentzell, Regional Director General, Maritimes Region; and Gorazd Ruseski, Director General, Indigenous Affairs.
On behalf of the members of the committee, I thank you all for being here today in person and virtually. I apologize if I mispronounced your names. With my Newfoundland and Labrador twang, I mispronounce most things anyway, but you know who you are.
Senator Ringuette: Due to the fact that proper social distancing is not being respected, I think it is a concern that I want to highlight and hopefully this situation will be remedied at the next meeting.
It is an order of the Speaker that applies both in the Senate and in the committees.
The Chair: Thank you for raising that, senator. We will look into the details of that. I understand it is our first morning back with all hands on deck, so it is a good morning to raise it. We will take your advice on that and check it out.
Minister, once again, I would like to welcome you and your officials here. I understand that you have some opening remarks. The floor is yours.
Hon. Joyce Catherine Murray, P.C., M.P., Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and Canadian Coast Guard: Good morning, Mr. Chair. Good morning senators. It is great to be here today on our area of mutual interest.
[Translation]
It’s a pleasure to be joining you today on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe people.
[English]
Thanks for inviting me to appear today alongside senior officials from Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the Canadian Coast Guard. I appreciate this opportunity to talk about my vision for Canada’s oceans. I have tremendous appreciation for the work that’s being carried out by members of this committee, including your study related to the implementation of Indigenous rights-based fisheries across Canada. Your report will help build trust, cooperation and communication between my department, Indigenous communities and non-Indigenous harvesters as we work together to develop a fair and equitable fisheries approach that acknowledges treaty rights and prioritizes conservation.
Our shared goal is a fishery that is peaceful, productive and prosperous, that upholds the Marshall decisions and ensures First Nations can exercise their treaty rights in ways that are reflective of their Nation’s vision and needs. I’m pleased to see that this approach has been adopted in the latest moderate livelihood fishing plans that have been authorized and in the fishing that’s currently underway by the Pictou Landing and Potlotek First Nations communities.
As a coastal Canadian, I have a particular affinity for our oceans and marine life. I also have a keen understanding of the tremendous social, cultural and economic importance they hold for coastal and Indigenous communities.
It’s important to acknowledge that our government has made significant investments in ocean health and conservation since taking office in 2015. The progress we’ve made since that time will serve as a strong foundation for our country’s blue economy. Budget 2022: A Plan to Grow Our Economy and Make Life More Affordable builds on that work with investments related to the Oceans Protection Plan, the Ghost Gear Fund, the Coastal Restoration Fund and the Great Lakes Fishery Commission.
As minister, it’s my job to ensure that our diverse and vital blue economy sectors can continue to grow, innovate and create jobs in an environmentally sustainable way. I believe the best way to do that is by transforming what my department does and how we do it. Guiding this work are four key priorities that will help us prioritize long-term success over short-term expediency.
First, we will address habitat degradation and restore what has been lost by promoting restoration and marine protection. This means investing in projects and partnerships that help restore aquatic habitat in coastal and marine areas, and by working hard to conserve 25% of our oceans by 2025 and 30% by 2030.
Second, we’ll be taking a long-term approach to species protection, which involves using the “precautionary approach” to help rebuild depleted fish stocks. When scientific knowledge about a certain species is uncertain, we’ll be exercising more caution when making fisheries management decisions. If commercial fishing is going to remain a viable economic industry for future generations — and it must — we have to do the hard work today to protect and rebuild depleted stocks. We must also step up our efforts to address overfishing and improve international governance in both our own waters and on the high seas.
Third, we will use ocean research, monitoring and observations and leverage international partnerships to help us better understand the state of our oceans, how they’re changing over time and the impact that climate change is having on fisheries, ecosystems and coastal infrastructure. As Canada adapts to a changing climate, ocean science and observations will help us identify vulnerabilities, create adaptation tools, improve ocean forecasting in coastal regions, and inform management decision making. Internally, the department must adapt its systems, processes and decision making so our fisheries and aquatic ecosystems are more resilient and able to adapt to a rapidly changing climate.
Finally, we will build a sustainable blue economy that fully integrates the goals of ocean health, ocean wealth, social inclusion and reconciliation with Indigenous peoples. Canada’s Blue Economy Strategy must help regenerate marine life, restore biodiversity and improve ocean health. At the same time, it will help established and emerging ocean sectors adopt new technologies and innovative practices that will increase their environmental performance and generate new jobs and wealth for coastal communities.
As my department sets about transforming the way our oceans are managed, three things will not change. The first is our ongoing commitment to reconciliation with Indigenous peoples. The second is our unwavering support for the Canadian Coast Guard. And the third is our ambition to build a workforce and a blue economy that is more diverse, equitable and inclusive. These are more than just aspirational goals or values. They are a pathway to greater prosperity for coastal Canadians and our country.
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, Canada’s oceans are more than just a proud part of our maritime history. They are the foundation of our country’s promising future. Today, we find ourselves in the midst of a necessary and transformative “sea change” with regard to how Canada manages its oceans and the marine life within them.
Strong public policy based on sound science is one way we can improve the health of our oceans and the wealth they generate for coastal communities. I sincerely appreciate your role in helping our government advance this work. Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you, minister, for taking the time to be with us here today. We have a list that’s growing quickly of questions for you and your officials. We will go to Deputy Chair Senator Busson first followed by Senator Francis.
Before we start, senators, we have only one hour with the minister, so please ask a question and one follow-up and we will move on to the next as quickly as possible.
Senator Busson: Thank you very much, minister and officials, for being here today. There is a lot on your plate with regard to your portfolio and what is happening with fisheries on both coasts and internationally.
In your introduction, you spoke about the blue economy. Specifically, I have an interest in ghost gear, which you referenced earlier. Ghost gear has been damaged and abandoned on both coasts, mostly from the commercial fisheries and aquaculture. The fund seeks to remove this waste. In the 2020-22 era, the fund supported 49 projects. Fisheries and Oceans Canada is to receive $10 million in this fiscal year to renew the Ghost Gear Fund. Approximately how many projects do you estimate might be funded with this additional $10 million? Is it expected that the fund will continue to be supported through the coming years?
Ms. Murray: Thank you for that question, senator. First, the Ghost Gear Fund is an important part of a larger program to reduce ocean plastic debris. I hold that quite dearly at heart. I worked on that as an MP.
How many projects? I don’t have an answer to that, so I will ask my officials to answer that. However, since ghost gear came to my attention a number of years ago, the idea of abandoned fishing gear that continues to fish and trap fish without being a productive part of our seafood economy is very concerning. I would like to do everything we can to remove ghost gear from the waters. I was delighted to see additional funding in Budget 2022.
Timothy Sargent, Deputy Minister, Fisheries and Oceans Canada: We don’t know at this point how many traps we will be removing. It will depend on the number of projects.
Senator Francis: Good morning, Minister Murray. Good to see you again. On March 1, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Jean-Guy Forgeron, told us that Fisheries and Oceans Canada does not envision any regulatory or legislative changes to implement the rights-based fisheries of the Mi’kmaq, Wolastoqey and Peskotomuhkati. However, legal experts who appeared on March 22 told us that changes are needed because the current regime is unconstitutional.
What is the official position of the federal government? Are you open to co-developing legislation to ensure compliance with the Constitution and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples?
Ms. Murray: Thank you for that question, senator.
Reconciliation with Indigenous communities is a high-priority project for our government, as is adhering to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Our department is working with Indigenous communities to implement those rights in a number of ways. We have reached rights and reconciliation understandings with four communities; we have signed 11 understandings with Mi’kmaq communities; we are continuing to work on Indigenous-led plans for moderate livelihood fishery where we provide assistance in accessing the materials that are needed and the licences for those plans to be implemented.
With respect to legislation, I will ask my officials if there are any plans for legislation on this matter.
Senator Francis: Well, Canada has never actually implemented Marshall, so I urge you to take the steps — in the spirit of reconciliation — to move forward together and get out of the status quo.
Mr. Sargent: Honourable chair, we have all the legislative and regulatory tools that we need to implement the moderate livelihood right.
Senator Francis: That is not a good answer but okay. Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: Good morning, minister. Welcome to this committee. I am from the Acadian Peninsula in New Brunswick. Since the announcement of the northern shrimp fishing plan on April 21, our population has been very concerned about the current issues surrounding this fishery.
The 14% drop in quotas due to warmer waters and the increase in the presence of the predatory redfish, in addition to the skyrocketing price of gasoline, means that the 14 shrimpers on the Acadian Peninsula do not believe they will be able to make a profit from their fishery and are still in dry dock.
Moreover, prices have not yet been set and fishers are asking for $1.40 per pound, compared to $1.00 last year. Considering that this situation has an impact on captains, deckhands and plant workers, can you tell us what your department intends to do in the short and medium term to support this important industry? How does this fit into your long-term vision for the fishery?
Ms. Murray: Excuse me, senator, I did not hear the first few words of your question. What fishery are we talking about?
[English]
Senator Cormier: Shrimp. I was just stating what is happening right now with the quotas and with the price of gas that is rising, and so on.
Ms. Murray: Gulf shrimp, northern shrimp?
Senator Cormier: Yes, the gulf shrimp. We are worried about the situation in the Acadian Peninsula right now because 14 boats are still on the ground.
[Translation]
Ms. Murray: Our first priority is the long-term conservation of all fish stocks; our second priority is the conservation of the First Nations’ vested right to the fishery; our third priority is to have a framework that is fair to the fishermen.
Every year, we use science to determine the stocks, and quotas are put in place based on the stocks.
[English]
I will ask my officials for more details.
Senator Cormier: I would appreciate that.
Mr. Sargent: As the minister said, we need a strong conservation plan for this stock. It has not been on the trajectory that we would like. Fishing is always an uncertain business and there are always ups and downs. We can’t control everything but one of the things we can control is the extent and quantity of fishing.
That’s why the core of our approach, when we have a stock in trouble, is to have a rebuilding plan that can put forward away back to the stock so that people can get out there and fish more.
Unfortunately, this year, we needed a significant reduction in fishing in order to protect the stock, but it is for the long-term benefit of [Technical difficulties].
The Chair: Before we go to Senator Kutcher, I have a question myself.
You said in the past that you wanted all salmon out of the water by 2025. Is that still the government’s decision at the present time?
Ms. Murray: Excuse me, do you mean the transition away from open-net pen salmon aquaculture?
The Chair: Yes.
Ms. Murray: Yes, it is my mandate from the Prime Minister to transition away from open-net pen salmon aquaculture on the Pacific coast.
The Chair: On the Pacific coast — by 2025? That’s the plan, isn’t it?
Ms. Murray: That transition is partially underway already. We will work with Indigenous communities, the aquaculture industry and local communities to have a methodical and planned transition away from aquaculture that permits interactions between the farmed salmon and the wild salmon, respecting the precautionary principle that there may well be a risk to the wild salmon from some of the pathogens in the fish farms themselves. Where there is concentrated mass of fish, it’s more probable there will be pathogens and parasites. We can’t afford manageable risks to our wild salmon on the West Coast because of the multiple stresses they are facing already.
The Chair: I am asking because we are looking at future plans for our committee, and I was wondering if you would find it valuable if this committee conducted a study over the next 12 to 18 months on the plan for the transition and what it looked like according to the mandate letter.
Ms. Murray: Chair, I would say that it is up to this committee’s members to determine what they have an interest in and will find helpful. I will certainly be interested; if the committee does choose to do such a study, I will be very interested in the conclusions and recommendations the committee reaches.
The Chair: Thank you, minister.
Senator Kutcher: Nice to see you again, minister. Thanks for being here. I really appreciate your three points. It is the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, so I appreciate your third point very much.
I want to focus on that. We know the oceans hold 50 times more carbon than the atmosphere holds. We know they capture and sequester more carbon emissions than all the world’s rainforests. We also know that we really don’t know very well how oceans capture, sequester and release carbon. In fact, most of the current models for carbon futures assume a gradual release of carbon from the oceans, which is not necessarily correct. Even there, the models are hugely divergent in their calculations.
We’re unlikely to reach net zero if we don’t have a deep understanding of the role of oceans in carbon capture, sequestration and release. There is work underway in Canada. The Ocean Frontier Institute, for example, in the North Atlantic is doing the kind of deep research that we need in order to understand these problems.
I could be incorrect but my understanding is that Canada is not substantively invested in the kinds of work we need to do to understand this issue in our own oceans, particularly in the North Atlantic. Norway, Germany, et cetera, are working to do that.
So my real question is the following: What is your department planning to do, either alone or with Environment as well as Innovation, to push this agenda and to develop the kind of research that we need to have to be able to deal with it?
Ms. Murray: Thank you, senator, for your interest in that. I have a deep interest in climate action as well. With the oceans being 70% of Earth’s surface, I’m in complete agreement that this is a very important area to understand and to take action on. That is a direction I’m providing to my department.
We are working to put together a blue economy strategy, which talks about ocean health being the foundation for ocean wealth. Ocean health includes having the living biomass that can absorb carbon into the ocean.
One of the things I’ve been thinking about and speaking about with the deputy and my officials is what other kinds of aquaculture, such as plant aquaculture, algae, kelp, eel grass — what can we do to protect the biomass in the oceans and increase it, whether plant or animal? That’s a part of the ocean’s absorption capacity.
Senator, you are correct to say that there is much more research to be done on this. We are beginning to understand the importance of nature-based solutions on land, and we have a program for that. I am very committed to an oceans’ nature-based-solutions approach, so we’re working on developing that. I will be attending a UN oceans conference at the end of June where I will bring forward Canada’s commitment to these matters and hope to create allies internationally so we can really start putting some horsepower behind the very things you are proposing.
Senator Kutcher: My understanding is that the Canadian Healthy Oceans Network wrapped up in 2021. Are there plans to reinvigorate it? The NRC was involved. Other academic institutions are doing that kind of work that would be perfect.
Ms. Murray: Thank you for that suggestion. As to whether there are specific plans, I will ask my department officials to weigh in.
Mr. Sargent: Yes. The honourable senator mentioned the North Atlantic Carbon Observatory. That is something we’re very interested in. We have been talking to OFI about it. We actually hosted an international meeting in December to talk that through, because this is something we want to move forward on with partners. So yes, we are very interested.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Ravalia: Thank you, minister and officials, for being here.
My question is actually directed to a relevant official. Would your department be able to provide me with any evidence your department currently has with respect to the impact of the growing seal population on fish stocks, in particular on Atlantic cod?
It is having a significant impact in my own province. As you know, we declared a moratorium in 1992, and 30 years later, we are still not seeing a revival. Certainly from local sources, we see evidence that the seal population is multiplying enormously.
Is there a plan in the short or long term with respect to this critical issue for our industry?
Ms. Murray: Before the deputy responds in more detail, the food sources for our seal populations do affect our fish stocks. One of the reasons the previous minister put forward an initiative to create a seal task force called the Atlantic Seal Science Task Team. That report will be tabled shortly. I think that one of the key conclusions will be that we need to do more science on the impacts of seals, and we need more harvesters’ evidence incorporated in the science we do.
Mr. Sargent: Perhaps, chair, we can turn to Mr. Arran McPherson to provide even further information.
Arran McPherson, Assistant Deputy Minister, Ecosystems and Ocean Science, Fisheries and Oceans Canada: To complement what has already been described with respect to the Atlantic Seal Science Task Team, we do have active science programs in Atlantic Canada focused on the potential impacts of seals on important marine species.
To respond specifically to the question, we do have data that can be provided to the committee as well as analyses that demonstrate the impact of grey seals on cod in the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence, for example.
However, the circumstance is not the same off the coast of Newfoundland with respect to harp seals, where, after substantial efforts, we have not been able to show a causal relationship between the decline of Atlantic cod and harp seals. I just offer that to the committee. Thank you.
Senator Ravalia: I have a follow-up with respect to Canada’s strategy on a go-forward basis. With respect to the Arctic, given the fact that we’ve seen increased evidence of activity among some of our competing nations, do we have a strategy for the next little while with respect to what happens in the Arctic oceans with respect to fisheries defence and your collaboration with other departments?
Ms. Murray: Thanks, senator. That’s a very important aspect of our geopolitical next steps. I would say the ocean climate warming and ice warming is accelerating, and the challenges of sovereignty and security are there. It is one of the reasons we created the Arctic region with both the Canadian Coast Guard and Fisheries and Oceans having the same boundary of the region.
The region was created hand in hand with Inuit people. Where the boundaries were, there was input and partnership with Inuit people to do that. What kind of programming we would launch was done in partnership with Inuit people. What kinds of measures we would take in terms of the specifics of engaging Inuit people in everything we do there was also a key consideration.
So strengthening our presence in the Arctic, our programming, and doing it hand in hand with Inuit partners and at the same time working with CIRNAC — who has with the Inuit people just launched an Inuit Nunangat Policy that harmonizes and coordinates the various ministries in the approach to working hand in hand with Inuit people and their opportunities — I think those are modest but important steps.
The Coast Guard base in the Arctic region and presence there will be a factor and will continue to strengthen our Arctic region presence and partnerships.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you, Minister Murray, Deputy Minister Sargent, and Assistant Deputy Minister O’Dea for joining us today. My questions are international in nature. They’re generated by my membership in the alliance of Parliamentarians for Global Action, which is a network I think you’re familiar with connecting legislators in 136 countries around the world.
There are no mandatory global safety regulations for those working in the seafood industry and on fishing vessels, and the pandemic has further eroded the human rights of these most vulnerable workers.
The IMO created the Cape Town Agreement, which once entered into force will establish mandatory global safety regulations for fishing vessels. During the IMO ministerial conference in October 2019, 51 countries signed the Torremolinos Declaration and they committed to ratifying this agreement by October of this year, which is the tenth anniversary of its being adopted. That requisite number of 22 countries ratifying that declaration has not yet been achieved.
Minister, I wonder if you could just give us a status update, you or your officials, on Canada’s commitment to this agreement. I want to note as part of that, Canada is also a membership state of the International Seabed Authority or has been and if we could have an update on that.
Ms. Murray: I’ll turn that over to Deputy Sargent or the Assistant deputy. But for context, I want to say that the safety of our workforce in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the Canadian Coast Guard is a high priority. I have in front of me eight different initiatives to address systemic racism, bias, discrimination and equality in our own workforce and I acknowledge that more needs to be done within the department. I’m very interested in these international agreements, senator, and looking forward to finding out more and seeing how Canada can strengthen our presence and the ability for these initiatives to move forward by getting a quorum. Thank you.
Niall O’Dea, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic Policy Fisheries and Oceans Canada: To add to what the minister shared, Canada is a member of seven different regional fisheries management organizations. In the context of the IMO work that you’re speaking to, we work with our partners at Transport Canada who are the lead for the IMO.
With respect to the regional fisheries management organizations where we have a more direct leadership role, we are working with like-minded partners on things like labour standards on the high seas and various issues associated with that including transshipment at sea that see high sea fishing vessels often at sea for many months at a time which may impact the health and safety of workers there.
It is a set of standards that we are looking forward to advance through all of these RFMO fora to ensure better protection for workers in those contexts.
Senator McPhedran: Are we going to ratify the Cape Town Agreement?
Mr. O’Dea: For that, senator, we would have to follow up with our Transport Canada colleagues and can come back to you with a response.
Senator McPhedran: Do I have time for a second question?
The Chair: You had a second question.
Senator McPhedran: I was getting an answer to my second.
The Chair: With that, I’ll give you an opportunity to ask a second.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you very much.
Canada has been a member state of the International Seabed Authority, but Canada abstained from voting for a moratorium on deep seabed mining, which was motion 69 of the authority. This call for a moratorium stems from the increasing concerns from the scientific community that the risks associated with deep seabed mining outweigh the potential net benefits for humankind. Many experts urge extreme caution, considering the inevitable and likely irreversible biodiversity loss if deep seabed mining is allowed.
Once the ISA begins issuing contracts for commercial exploitation, probably within the reasonable future, it will be nearly impossible to reverse the trajectory of deep seabed mining.
Minister, in light of this, could you please help us understand why the Government of Canada abstained on motion 69?
Ms. Murray: Thank you, senator, for that question. I would like to talk about DFO’s part in this because the Ministry of Natural Resources is the lead on those international agreements.
What we’re doing at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the Canadian Coast Guard is committing to be part of the goal of having Marine Protected Areas of 25% by 2025 and 30% by 2030. Those Marine Protected Areas, one of the four key protections, is from seabed mining. That will be a significant percentage of Canada’s coastal area that will be protected from seabed mining. When it comes to the international agreement, as I mentioned, NRCan will be leading that decision making and action.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you very much. That answers what was going to be my third question.
The Chair: That’s good because you’re not going to get a third.
Senator Quinn: I was watching my colleague to see how I can get a third question. Thank you to you and your officials for being here. The questions and answers are interesting. I want to follow up on what Senator Francis was getting at, and perhaps I could direct it to the deputy, but of course, minister, you can decide.
I’ve been on this committee and a senator for just a few months. We’re reviewing Aboriginal fisheries, and it’s becoming more and more clear to me that the main issues are coming down to Marshall and its implementation and section 35. Of course different places in government have different experiences with these things.
Deputy, I’m wondering, is there a plan for implementation, taking the interim policies and saying this is a timeline against which we’re going to work which has dates so we can get key results, if you will, so we can come back to the department on occasion to find out how is it going? Where are you with the plan?
Ms. Murray: Can I just say, senator, that I share your concern and your commitment to implementing the court-affirmed moderate livelihood fisheries. A key here is that this needs to be Indigenous-led. I would be concerned about having a timeline where we as a government are pushing something that really is about responding to the interest and the needs of the Indigenous communities themselves. Certainly, we don’t want to slow anything down and wouldn’t do that. So that would be my introductory comment, and the deputy may have more to share.
Mr. Sargent: As the minister said, this is something where we need to work with the individual First Nations, and what works for one First Nation won’t necessarily work with another First Nation. With Listuguj First Nation in Gaspé we have the Rights Reconciliation Agreement, and that’s the path that they have chosen. With, let’s say, Pictou Landing First Nation in Nova Scotia, they didn’t want to go down that road. They have gone a different road, which is an interim moderate livelihood fisheries plan, and they are now out there exercising their right that way.
This is very much a journey. There is no higher priority for the department than this and ensuring that Indigenous rights are respected and implemented. It’s certainly a topic that we would be very happy to come back and talk to the committee on as we go forward on this journey with the various Indigenous treaty nations in Atlantic Canada and the Gaspé.
Senator Quinn: A different topic. During our break, I was able to travel around different areas of southern New Brunswick, meeting all kinds of different people. It was interesting about the West Coast initiative around aquaculture and the interaction between the farm fishing and wild salmon. There is concern from the folks I talked to that this initiative will soon find its way to the East Coast. Is there any such thought that that may be something that’s on the horizon?
Ms. Murray: No, I don’t see anything on the horizon to have the same framework of transitioning away from open-net pen salmon aquaculture that we are doing on the West Coast transferred to the East Coast, partially because the key reason that this policy was implemented had to do with well over 100 Indigenous communities that have been demanding a more precautionary approach to the wild Pacific salmon that remain essential not just to their food source but also their social and ceremonial activities on the West Coast.
The wild Pacific salmon have a uniquely important role right up and down the coast where they migrate and it’s not that many years ago when that was a vibrant fishery with healthy stocks. The stressors have increased, and climate change is one of those along with habitat loss, overfishing perhaps in decades past. That’s why the Indigenous communities — and I myself agree — are of the view that manageable stressors need to be addressed. It’s a no-fail situation that we bring these salmon runs back to where they can once again provide the food for remote communities, some of which would have to drive five hours to get to a supermarket or not be able to at all because of remote access. Salmon is an essential part of their diet and their lifestyle, culture and ceremony, and we have to bring them back.
Senator Quinn: Thank you.
Senator Ringuette: Madam minister, you highlighted your four key priorities, which are all based on science and research, actually. How much of your $99-million budget are you going to spend on science and research? That’s my first question.
Might as well go with my second question: With regard to what you said about the Blue Economy Strategy that you will be engaging in consultation, are you going to commit to this committee that with regard to this consultation to establish a Blue Economy Strategy, our Indigenous population from coast to coast to coast will have an equal voice in this consultation?
Ms. Murray: Thank you for those questions, senator. Firstly, the budgetary allocation for science was $350 million, so a considerable proportion of the department’s Budget 2022 increase. Secondly, with respect to the Blue Economy Strategy, a significant initiative has already taken place to get the public’s views and Indigenous communities’ views on the Blue Economy Strategy. A report was issued about six weeks ago, which was a “What We Heard” report on the Blue Economy Strategy. We can find the link to that for your interest. I think there will be further consultation. We are interested in bringing it forward to cabinet and to the budgetary process in future years to fund the Blue Economy Strategy, and, yes, Indigenous community input will be extremely important as we solidify our plan.
Senator Ringuette: As you expressed your comments to my question, I gather that we have a commitment that there will be a very strong — if not equal — voice from our Indigenous population?
Ms. Murray: Yes.
Senator Ringuette: Thank you.
Senator Ataullahjan: Minister, how does the department aim to protect the environment equally without solely restricting Indigenous fisheries?
Ms. Murray: Thanks for that question. Constitutionally, this department is responsible for conservation of fish. According to the Marshall decision, that conservation is a baseline that we have to respect. So within those constraints, the fisheries access for First Nations is the next strong priority, over non-Indigenous harvesters’ fisheries.
Senator Ataullahjan: Thank you.
Senator Cordy: Thank you for meeting with us again, minister. Certainly, your long-term interest in the environment I think is going to be very helpful to you as you work with Fisheries and Oceans and the Coast Guard. Thank you very much for being here today.
I would like to ask a question about the Great Lakes Fishery Commission. It’s an international organization established by the U.S. and Canada. Those of us who have been paying attention were very pleased with the increase in budget for the commission. I’m sure that Vance Badawey was knocking on your door day and night as he has been very active on that file in the Canada-United States Inter-Parliamentary Group. So thank you very much for that.
In terms of the money that will be spent, will the money be spent on new projects for the fishery commission or will it be existing projects, including research, and particularly how to control invasive species like the sea lamprey in the Great Lakes?
Ms. Murray: Thank you very much, senator. Your comment on my commitment to the environment is very correct. We’ve known each other for a number of years.
Having been a company owner for 25 years, I have a healthy respect for businesses and business people and what it takes to be a successful business person in the fisheries and seafood industry. I take to heart those concerns and challenges as well. I just wanted to mention that.
As you mentioned, as you’re happy about the Great Lakes Fisheries Commission budgetary increase, I am as well. That’s about $9 million a year, almost doubling the budget of the Great Lakes Fisheries Commission’s Canadian part in that.
My understanding is that the set of things that we are working on with our American partners, the science and the sea lamprey control, will continue to be funded, but more generously. Should the commission decide on other priority priorities by bilateral discussion, then the funding can be provided for those. But at this point the priorities will be more generously funded. I think Parliamentary Secretary Badawey is pretty happy with that.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: Welcome back. I want to go back to my question about the shrimp industry and use that as an example.
Your second priority is species protection. Shrimp suddenly appear to be in decline, it would seem. This comes as a bit of a surprise to many people in the field. How do you intend to work with the industry to implement these priorities? When I talk to people in the fishing industry back home, many tell me that they understand that there are short-term actions; however, there is a lack of long-term vision. How will you work with the industry to ensure that your priorities are met?
[English]
Ms. Murray: Thank you, Senator Cormier. I’ll turn that over to the deputy and other officials who are on the ground as to how we are working. I can say we do have officials in the region whose job it is to consult with the harvesters, but the overall concern, I think, around the decline in the fisheries in many of the stocks is affected by climate change so the oceans are warmer. I’ve seen some of these maps showing the seabed floor having much different ecological factors than in the past. The warmer waters, the changed currents, the oxygenation and acidification make some areas more hostile to the growth and abundance of different stocks.
But they have also moved to other areas. For example, area 4 off the coast of Labrador has seen an enormous increase in shrimp. To some degree, this out of our department’s control, and our job becomes doing the science to understand where there are viable stocks and ensuring that the allocations are such that we don’t risk the viability of any stocks. It’s difficult for those fishers who have built a livelihood on a stock in an area that’s no longer hospitable for those fish.
Are there other things the deputy would like to add?
Mr. Sargent: Yes, if I may, honourable chair. Shrimp abundance has been on a downward trend since 2005. We’re seeing particularly the deeper water getting quite a bit warmer; we’re seeing lower oxygen levels. We also have a redfish population that has expanded over the last couple of years, and shrimp are a main food source for redfish. This is a stock that has been in trouble for some time.
I think, to the honourable senator’s point, we do need to work closely with industry, and that is the plan over the next number of years. We want to review the precautionary framework, which is the tool we use for managing those fishing stocks that are in trouble, as well as the decision rules that we use. It is what is happening to the stock, having the science there and understanding the stock’s trajectory, and I’m thinking on what things we can do to rebuild the stock and working with industry on that and what those rules look like if the stocks do this and how many fish there are.
Senator Francis: DFO has had 23 years to implement Marshall and still has not done so and is not any closer to negotiating.
Are you in agreement that negotiation of Indigenous fisheries rights should not be led by your department, as various First Nations have told us?
Ms. Murray: Well, my understanding is that we work very closely with CIRNAC, and CIRNAC is the lead in negotiating rights. Where we are more the lead agency is to support the communities and their development of moderate livelihood fishery plans and understandings, but when it comes to rights negotiations, CIRNAC is the lead.
Senator Francis: Would you agree that 23 years is long enough to move forward more effectively than we have in the past?
Ms. Murray: I would agree that 23 years is a long time since the Marshall court decision, and I know that much of the work has been done since our government came into power at the end of 2015, with a commitment to reconciliation and rights for Indigenous people. It has been a ramp-up from there and a lot more needs to be done, senator. I acknowledge that.
The Chair: Mr. Sargent, could you provide this committee by the end of the week or early next week a summary of scientific evidence the department has gathered that states salmon farming poses more than a minimal threat to wild salmon?
Mr. Sargent: We’re certainly happy to provide the wide variety of science that we’ve done on this issue over the last five years.
The Chair: Thank you, minister and your officials, for taking time to appear before our committee this morning and answer some questions. As you see, there are a variety of concerns around our table, and we’re blessed to have the great backgrounds of people sitting here with many questions.
On behalf of the committee, I want to thank you for taking the time to be with us this morning, and we look forward to hearing from you in the future.
I would like to thank the committee for their questions.
Ms. Murray: Thank you to each of you. Thank you for the work that helps us inform the work we all do.
The Chair: Last week, on April 28, the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans was authorized to examine and report on the elements contained in Part 7 of Bill S-6, An Act respecting regulatory modernization. We begin our examination of the subject matter of that portion of the bill today with officials from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat.
To start, we are joined virtually by Adam Burns, Acting Assistant Deputy Minister, Fisheries Harbour Management and Heather McCready, Director General, Conservation and Protection, both with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada; and Sonia Parmar, Director, Policy and Strategic Planning, Regulatory Policy and Cooperation Directorate in the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat. On behalf of members of the committee, I want to thank you for joining us here today.
Mr. Burns, I understand you will be giving opening remarks on the government legislation, followed by Ms. Parmar. Then we will move to questions from senators.
[Translation]
Adam Burns, Acting Assistant Deputy Minister, Fisheries Harbour Management, Fisheries and Oceans Canada: Good morning, I am pleased to be here to discuss Bill S-6, An Act respecting regulatory modernization.
While this is a multi-departmental bill, there are several elements of note that relate to Fisheries and Oceans Canada.
[English]
Those include an amendment to the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, or CFPA, to create an offence of contravening a term or condition of a licensed permit. It also includes amendments to the Fisheries Act to affirm that officers have the discretion to enter into alternative-measure agreements, specifically in terms of creating an express statutory requirement to comply with terms and conditions of any licence, permit or other authorization under the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act.
[Translation]
This proposal seeks to amend the CFPA to create an express statutory requirement to comply with terms and conditions of any licence, permit, or other authorization issued under that act.
In cases of contraventions of terms and conditions, anyone guilty of an offence is liable on conviction for an indictable offence to a fine not exceeding $500,000 or on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding $100,000.
The amendment clarifies the legal obligations of foreign vessel owners, captains, and crew that are operating in Canadian waters.
[English]
That amendment to the CFPA brings it into alignment with the amendments previously made to the Fisheries Act, which had been amended to address concerns that were raised by the Standing Joint Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations. The amendment to the CFPA provides clarity and certainty for domestic and international businesses operating in Canada. It clarifies that compliance with the terms and conditions of licences and permits issued under the CFPA is a statutory obligation and that failure to comply is an offence punishable, on conviction, by fine. The change will have a positive impact on the rights, interests and self-government provisions of modern treaty partners and strengthens compliance with legislation and regulations for resources that Indigenous communities may access.
In terms of the authority of a Fisheries officer to exercise discretion to resolve a matter prior to charges being laid under the amendments to the Fisheries Act —
[Translation]
— an Alternative Measures Agreement, or AMA, is a diversion process designed to address contraventions to the Fisheries Act without the need to engage in costly, and potentially lengthy, court processes.
The use of AMAs is currently noted within the Fisheries Act as a process that is available after charges have been laid. This amendment to the Fisheries Act clarifies the continued legal authority of a fishery officer to exercise discretion with respect to the enforcement of the Act prior to charges being laid, including referring a matter to a process based on restorative justice principles.
[English]
This reduced the ambiguity regarding the authority of Fisheries officers, Fisheries guardians and other peace officers to exercise their discretion in enforcing the act.
The proposed amendments also include removing the 180-day limitation period for entering into an alternative measures agreement under the Fisheries Act which the Public Prosecution Service of Canada has identified as problematic, particularly in complex cases.
One of the Calls for Justice identified in Reclaiming Power and Place: The Final Report of the National Inquiry Into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls calls upon all governments to increase accessibility to meaningful and culturally appropriate justice practices by expanding restorative justice programs and Indigenous people’s courts.
The use of restorative justice-based processes is supported by Indigenous communities and the broader public. Alternative measures offer defendants the opportunity to avoid criminal records for certain offences and reduces the stigma associated with formal charges which can have an immediate and long-lasting negative impact on business competitiveness and employment prospects.
Additionally the restorative justice philosophy includes that those who have caused harm have a responsibility to repair that harm. Those who have been harmed are central in deciding what is needed to repair it. And communities have a role to play in supporting both victims and offenders in addressing the root causes of offending.
This serves as a foundation for advancing restorative justice principles with a shared emphasis on fostering relationships and collaboration, developing holistic and interdisciplinary responses and taking a flexible approach that offers multiple problem-solving pathways.
With that, chair, I will be happy to take questions along with my colleague, Ms. McCready.
Sonia Parmar, Director, Policy and Strategic Planning, Regulatory Policy and Cooperation Directorate, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat: Thank you, honourable chair and honourable senators. First of all, I am very pleased to be here today to provide you with an overview of Bill S-6, and I’m happy to answer any questions you may have with respect to the overarching context of this legislation.
Thanks very much to my colleagues from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans who spoke to the specific issues related to their amendments included in this bill.
Bill S-6, An Act respecting regulatory modernization proposes to amend 29 pieces of legislation via 46 proposed amendments. These amendments would help keep regulations relevant and up to date by reducing administrative burden for business, facilitating digital interactions with government, simplifying regulatory processes and making cross-border trade easier through more consistent and coherent rules across government.
[Translation]
As such, S-6 is the government’s second annual regulatory modernization bill.
[English]
Announced in the Fall Economic Statement 2018, the Annual Regulatory Modernization Bill, was meant to be a reoccurring legislative mechanism that enables government to make common sense changes across many pieces of legislation at once to address overly complicated, inconsistent or outdated requirements raised by businesses and Canadians.
The ARMB is a key component of the government’s agenda to improve Canada’s regulatory system while continuing to ensuring health, safety and security of Canadians and protection of the environment.
As such, taken individually, these individual amendments in Bill S-6 are modest in scope, but taken as a whole, they are meant to have an impact and contribute to the government’s regulatory modernization agenda.
Grouping relatively minor legislative changes in one bill is both efficient in terms of time and cost, and the ARMB is designed specifically to propose multiple non-contentious legislative changes all at once. These are fixes, basically, that the President of the Treasury Board can represent or sponsor on behalf of her cabinet colleagues, but anything above and beyond this threshold may be good for proposals for regulatory modernization, However, this should be brought forward for individual responsible ministers for parliamentary and public scrutiny.
These fixes may be required for a number of reasons. For example, in some circumstances, the original legislation reflects the context or past history of the day. In some circumstances, explicit legislative authority may be applied inconsistently or is implied, and given the evolution of drafting conventions, authorities are sometimes clearer in newer regulations than they are in existing regulations.
[Translation]
In terms of stakeholder input, the 46 proposed amendments were either identified by stakeholders — so 33 — or in response to issues raised by the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations — so 13. The Treasury Board Secretariat also launched a public consultation through the Canada Gazette from June 28 to September 5, 2019, inviting interested stakeholders to share their views on themes related to regulatory modernization, including offering suggestions for the next bill.
As a result, 48 stakeholder submissions referred to the bill; however, most of these responses could not be considered, as they proposed changes to the regulations rather than to the legislation. All comments were nevertheless forwarded to the departments responsible for regulation.
Following this consultation, a report was published online in November 2020. The following four themes were highlighted for changes to the legislation: reducing administrative burden, increasing regulatory flexibility and opportunities for experimentation, enhancing harmonization with major trading partners and removing duplicative, redundant and unclear requirements.
Similarly, a call to government departments was launched in August 2019, resulting in 1074 proposals affecting 72 acts, submitted by 14 departments. All proposals were thoroughly reviewed to ensure that there was no negative impact on the health, safety and security of Canadians and the protection of the environment.
[English]
Just to explain the scope, beyond what’s contained in Bill S-6, additional proposals were set aside from further consideration for a variety of reasons. Some may have been too broad in scope or deemed regulatory in nature while others were not considered because they sought to alter service fees or proposed additional activities contributing to increased burden.
In conclusion, the process to develop the third version of the bill is currently underway based upon COVID lessons learned, and the president has committed to introducing the third ARMB in spring 2023.
Moving forward, the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat will use its newly launched Let’s Talk Federal Regulations platform to seek input from Canadian businesses and individuals in ways we can improve Canada’s regulatory system. So consultations on the fourth ARMB are expected to launch in fall 2022. I would like to thank you very much for your time today.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Parmar.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you to the witnesses. My question isn’t directly to the act’s changes but around them. In particular, are our current monitoring and enforcement capabilities regarding foreign fishing vessels operating in Canadian waters adequate to protect our coastal fisheries?
Heather McCready, Director General, Conservation and Protection, Fisheries and Oceans Canada: I will jump in on that question, if you like, Mr. Burns?
Mr. Burns: Sure.
Ms. McCready: Good morning. Thank you Mr. Chair and honourable senator for the question.
We are quite active in protecting Canada’s coastal fisheries from foreign fishing. There was a parliamentary question about a year ago asking for specific statistical information on that. I will draw some answers from that for this and we can also provide that to you in written form.
I think most of the honourable senators here have a good understanding of how all this works, but just in case, I thought I would give a brief introduction of the various laws at play here. This amendment is specific to the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act but there are other relevant pieces of treaties and legislation involved.
For any Canadian vessel fishing in Canadian waters or internationally, those vessels are licensed under and subject to the Fisheries Act. So we use the Fisheries Act to enforce for those particular fishing vessels. When we have foreign vessels fishing in Canadian fishery waters — that is, within the Canadian 200-mile exclusive economic zone and interior to Canada — those vessels are subject to the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, which is the one subject to the proposed amendment.
In this case, typically speaking, those vessels are not authorized to fish in Canadian waters so their fishing within Canadian waters is a violation. The exception is on the Pacific coast with Pacific halibut as there is a reciprocity agreement with the U.S. In most cases, those vessels are not licensed to fish here, so doing so is a violation of the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act.
In addition to that, there are various regional fishery management organizations. For example, on the East Coast, there would be the NAFO, or the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization. Vessels fishing in the NAFO regulatory area but outside of the Canadian 200-mile limit are subject to the rules of NAFO and our inspectors would then inspect them if they are relatively close to Canada. We can reach them and then be doing enforcement work under the NAFO rules.
Quite a broad spectrum of rules and regulations apply. We devote a significant amount of time to that. It is a large piece of work for our fishery officers across the country and for other DFO officials who are involved in various international meetings with other parties bilaterally and also with the regional fisheries management organizations. Thank you.
Mr. Burns: To add for clarity, in terms of foreign fishing in Canadian waters, as Ms. McCready noted, it is generally prohibited with a couple of exceptions based on treaties with either the United States or France, on behalf of St. Pierre and Miquelon. Beyond that, only Canadian-flag vessels are permitted to fish in Canadian waters.
Senator Kutcher: Great. Thank you very much for that information. It is very helpful and I appreciate it, but it didn’t answer the question.
Are you comfortable that we are monitoring properly and catching people who are not? Pardon the pun, but how many of these vessels slip through the net?
Mr. Burns: We have a very active monitoring regime and real-time information on these foreign fishing vessels and where they are, whether it be outside of Canada’s 200-mile limit or, in those instances where they are authorized, coming into Canadian waters to go to port or what have you. We are able to identify, by the behaviour of the vessel — that is, the speed that it is going and that sort of thing — that it is not engaged in fishing activities. We are very confident in our capabilities for this type of monitoring.
Senator Kutcher: Great. Thank you very much for that. I appreciate it.
Senator Francis: This is for Ms. McCready and Mr. Burns. Back when, I was a chief in 2018, the Mi’kmaq Confederacy of P.E.I., along with Abegweit First Nation and the Lennox Island First Nation, signed a restorative justice agreement with Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the public prosecution service to add offences under the Fisheries Act to the existing MCPEI Indigenous Justice Program. This was the first agreement of its type in Eastern Canada. How many of these agreements have been signed since or are in the process of being finalized?
The Chair: Who wants to try to answer that?
Ms. McCready: I would be happy to jump in on that.
I would have to get back to you on the specific number of agreements. However, I know the one that the honourable senator mentioned was the first of its kind in Eastern Canada. We do work quite closely with the public prosecution service to advance restorative justice. Whether or not there is a restorative justice agreement, that’s a tool available to our officers. That’s something we can put in place regardless of the existence of a formal agreement.
With respect to the specific number of communities, can I get back to you with a written answer on that?
The Chair: Supplementary?
Senator Francis: Yes. Could you also tell us how many Indigenous versus non-Indigenous individuals have been eligible for restorative justice programs for fishing-related offences and how many have completed from start to end? If no, can you also provide that to us by the end of the week?
Ms. McCready: Yes, of course. We can provide specific statistical information on that to you in writing.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Ravalia: My question is based on some subtleties of language. In Bill S-6, clause 157 confirms that nothing in the alternative measures agreements portion of the Fisheries Act would limit the ability of fisheries officers, guardians, peace officers, and so on, before a charge is laid, which includes the ability to refer a matter to a process based on restorative justice principles.
In this context, is the term “process based on restorative justice principles” synonymous with the alternative measures agreement? I was trying to seek clarity on that point.
Ms. McCready: Thank you for the question. I will start the answer that and invite Mr. Burns or Ms. Parmar to come in if they would like to add anything.
I think the best way I would describe it is that all jelly beans are candy, but not all candy is a jelly bean. All restorative justice measures are examples of alternative measures, but not all alternative measures are examples of restorative justice. Restorative justice fits within alternative measures, but it does not describe all the possible alternative measures. Is that helpful?
Senator Ravalia: Yes, to some extent. Any additional comments from some of your colleagues?
The Chair: Do any other senators have questions to ask our witnesses this morning.
As we say in Newfoundland and Labrador, you must be doing a fine job as there are no back-up questions. Witnesses, I want to thank you for explaining the bill to us. If we have any follow-up questions we will reach out to, but it seems pretty self-explanatory, what you are trying to do and the work that you put into it. As Ms. Parmar touched on, it is a collaborative approach from the people involved. There nothing there that strikes us a major concern, so we wish you luck and thank you for your time. We will go back to our deliberations and we will reserve the right to call you back, just in case. Have a great day.
Mr. Burns: Thank you, chair and committee members.
Ms. McCready: Thank you, chair.
Ms. Parmar: Thank you.
The Chair: That concludes our witnesses for today. We will go in camera now for a moment to discuss a couple of things.
(The committee continued in camera.)