THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND OCEANS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, March 23, 2023
The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans met with videoconference this day at 9:06 a.m. [ET] to study the federal government’s current and evolving policy framework for managing Canada’s fisheries and oceans including maritime safety.
Senator Fabian Manning (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, good morning. My name is Fabian Manning, senator from Newfoundland and Labrador, and I have the pleasure of chairing this committee this morning.
Today, we are conducting a meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. Should any technical challenges arise, particularly in relation to interpretation, please signal this to the chair or the clerk and we will work to resolve the issue.
I would like to take a few moments to allow the members of the committee to introduce themselves.
Senator M. Deacon: Marty Deacon, Ontario.
Senator Francis: Brian Francis, Prince Edward Island.
Senator Ravalia: Mohamed-Iqbal Ravalia, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator R. Patterson: Rebecca Patterson, Ontario.
Senator Kutcher: Stan Kutcher, Nova Scotia.
The Chair: Thank you, senators.
On February 10, 2022, the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans was authorized to examine and report on issues relating to the federal government’s current and evolving policy framework for managing Canada’s fisheries and oceans. Today, under this mandate, the committee will be hearing during the first panel from the following witnesses from the Fisheries and Oceans Canada, on the topic of the independence of the inshore fishery in Atlantic Canada and Quebec. We have some people joining us by video and some people here in person. I’m going to ask those in person to introduce themselves first, and those on video to follow.
Jennifer Buie, Acting Director General, Fisheries Resources Management, Fisheries and Oceans Canada: Good morning, senators. My name is Jennifer Buie, Acting Director General of Fisheries Resources Management in Ottawa.
Jennifer Mooney, Director, National Licensing Operations, Fisheries and Oceans Canada: Good morning, senators. It’s nice to be here. I’m Jennifer Mooney, Director of National Licensing Operations in Ottawa.
Doug Wentzell, Regional Director General, Maritimes Region, Fisheries and Oceans Canada: Good morning, senators and colleagues. I’m Doug Wentzell, Regional Director General, Maritimes Region.
[Translation]
Maryse Lemire, Regional Director, Fisheries Management, Quebec Region, Fisheries and Oceans Canada: Good morning, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. My name is Maryse Lemire, Regional Director, Fisheries Management, Quebec Region, Fisheries and Oceans Canada.
[English]
The Chair: On behalf of the members of the committee, I thank you for joining us today. I understand that Ms. Buie has opening remarks. Following her presentation, members of the committee will have questions for the witnesses.
Ms. Buie: Thank you so much for the warm welcome. First, I would like to acknowledge that I am today from the unceded traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe People.
We are here today in support of this committee’s study of the independence of commercial inshore fisheries in Atlantic Canada and Quebec. With my opening comments, I would like to touch on several key themes from the conversations to date, starting with Owner Operator. This long-standing policy, now enshrined in regulations, is designed to ensure that the person who holds a licence to fish is in fact retaining the rights and privileges of the licence. Owner Operator means that the benefits of harvesting the resource remain in the hands of multiple, fully independent operators contributing in their communities rather than a small number of people or corporations controlling multiple boats and gaining most of the economic benefits for themselves.
A related concern described to you by stakeholders is the potential for controlling agreements, particularly financial agreements, that remove control over the rights and privileges of a licence from the licence holder to a third party. We acknowledge and share the concern that such agreements could lead to fewer economic benefits flowing to harvesters, their families and coastal communities.
[Translation]
As a result of the passage of Bill C-68 and the new regulations, implementation is handled by two separate branches within DFO. The Licensing Branch conducts administrative reviews of licence holder eligibility, while the Conservation and Protection Branch is in charge of enforcement.
As stakeholders have correctly noted, investigations by Conservation and Protection are necessarily confidential and must remain so in to avoid jeopardizing the integrity of any court actions that may result.
[English]
These investigations can also take a considerable amount of time, spanning multiple years to complete. Given this complexity, specialized skill sets and advanced investigative techniques are required. Comprehensive strategies and processes have been developed to support fishery officers as they undertake these complex investigations. We continue to work with the Public Prosecution Service of Canada and other key parties to garner support for enforcement actions on these types of files.
On the administration side of implementing the inshore regulations, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, or DFO’s approach, as intended by the regulations, is to enable compliance. This occurs when licensing staff identify concerns about a licence holder’s eligibility. Licensing staff look for specific triggers in the documentation they receive and are transparent and share those concerns with the licence holder and/or their representative, and then work to provide them with the necessary information to enable compliance with the regulations.
As noted by stakeholders, financial agreements between harvesters and third parties have strengths and weaknesses. Loans, vessel lease agreements and supply agreements are all part of the evolving reality of modern-day fisheries. These are also arrangements that are negotiated between private parties, and DFO cannot dictate what the specific terms of such agreements should be.
Harvesters are entering into these agreements willingly, and according to their own self-determined best interest. DFO strives to apply regulations to ensure harvesters and their communities are protected without stifling their opportunities for growth.
It is also important to note that licensing is not intended to be punitive. I am pleased to report that a total of 1,724 licence holders have been reviewed, and in 623 cases, additional information was requested by DFO. Financial agreements between harvesters and third parties were the most common factor for initiating a more detailed administrative review. A total of 37 fishers provided new agreements that now comply with the regulations.
[Translation]
As a further measure of accountability and transparency, information on DFO’s administrative reviews is now available on our website, with data to be updated every six months. This was a request from industry and we appreciate their suggestion, which has now been implemented.
In addition, we have posted on that same website four different guidance documents for industry to refer to as needed to help harvesters and stakeholders understand the rules.
[English]
In closing, I would like to restate our goal of maintaining strong communication links with all members of the inshore fishery. We greatly value the first-hand experience of harvesters, who, in many cases, bring many decades and even generations of wisdom to the table.
We look forward to the committee’s questions today. Thank you, chair.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Buie. Great opening remarks.
Senator Francis: Has the department assessed how the corporate concentrations, foreign ownership and vertical integration of the fishery sector are affecting fishers from different socio-economic backgrounds, regions and cultures?
Ms. Buie: Thank you for that question, senator. Right now, we are undertaking quite a comprehensive study. We are polling and surveying our midshore and offshore licence holders to ensure that we have a clear understanding of the foreign ownership of the licences — as you know, we have a policy that it has to be 51% Canadian owned — to have a better understanding of the corporate concentrations of all our midshore and offshore licences.
This examination has been going for a year. The surveys took place last year, and now we are looking at the data and analyzing it. There should be a report forthcoming sometime this year.
Senator Francis: Thank you.
Senator Ravalia: Thank you to our witnesses and those who are here virtually.
I’m speaking from the context of living in a rural community that is very much dependent on the fishery. I was wondering if you could further elaborate on your communications strategies directly with individuals who are fishing in these rural communities.
I appreciate the conservation and protecting biodiversity as being an important element of DFO. However, inevitably, in every conversation that I have with an inshore fisherman in my community, there is this constant sense of antagonism between DFO and the fisher with respect to overregulation and overlicensing; debates on the health of certain stocks; the concerns, for example, of the seals impacting fisheries, and so on. There is a constant negativity toward DFO within my community. It puts fishery officers in a very tight predicament, I feel.
From my personal perspective, the element of communications I would like to see does not seem to be there on the ground. I was wondering if you might be able to elaborate on that.
Ms. Buie: Thank you, senator, for the question. In terms of communications with our stakeholders, we have quite a robust communications process, especially around decision making when it comes to quotas and management measures.
We have annual advisory meetings in which harvesters can participate. There is, oftentimes, regional round tables in which various issues can be raised by harvesters themselves. Our Conservation and Protection, or C and P branch, as well as fishery managers, are present to answer concerns.
In terms of your specific question about what is happening on the ground, I will turn to my colleague Doug Wentzell to respond to that more precisely.
Mr. Wentzell: Thank you, senator, for the question. I would build on my colleague’s response to say not only have we established advisory committee meetings — that’s one of the key functional components of how we manage fisheries — we do engage with harvesters on a regular basis through our area offices where we have a presence across all DFO sectors at a very local level. We have Conservation and Protection that has fishery officers present, talking with fishers on the water, on the wharves on a regular basis, as well as other stakeholders, because we are involved in habitat protection, small-craft harbours and a number of different business lines.
Notwithstanding the point that the senator raised, it is important to note that DFO manages a limited biological resource. We have more and more ocean users as time goes on, as we develop ocean technology sectors, as we look at having other stakeholders engage in the oceans’ economy. That does lead to a high volume of questions. It leads to a high degree of engagement and speaks to the importance of these resources to coastal and Indigenous communities.
So the question is a very pertinent one, and it is one that we have to take to heart in terms of making sure that we’re fully engaged on the ground.
Senator Ravalia: Thank you very much, Mr. Wentzell. To follow up on that, of course, for us they are competing areas within the ocean. There is our federal government’s willingness to create more and more marine protected areas, and there is competition for space between fishery and now the oil and gas industry.
To what extent does DFO communicate with the oil and gas industries and the environmental department in terms of respecting some of the marine protection requirements that are increasingly becoming an important part of the equation?
Mr. Wentzell: We regularly engage with our colleagues whether federally, through NRCan, or provincially, in our case through the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board, to have those meaningful discussions.
Again, the senator is quite right in the comments around those competing interests. In the Maritimes region where I work, we have been passionate about ensuring we protect our marine resources. We have established a number of protected areas and marine refuges with more under development. Those discussions involve a high degree of engagement with respect to oil and gas and other industry sectors. The only other piece I would add is we are continuing to ramp up our efforts in an area called marine spatial planning to ensure that whether it is protection, commercial fishing, transportation or other ocean users, we are leaning in and being more deliberate in how we look ahead and plan to make sure we don’t run into those situations where we have conflicts between different user groups. That’s going to be an important focus for us moving forward.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you all for being here. I must admit I feel a bit disconnected from what I have heard from officials today and what this committee has heard from numerous fishers before. We hear that since the fleet separation policy in 1979 outlawing controlling agreements, there have been insistent and persistent concerns. Now, 1979 was a long time ago. I’m glad to hear you are doing a study in 2022, but over and over we hear there is no consequence. Over and over we hear there is a lack of enforcement. I feel like I’m in a Kafkaesque novel almost because I’m hearing one thing from fishers and I’m hearing a completely different thing here from officials. Help me square and circle and better understand why the fishers would be coming here and saying we have a huge problem with controlling agreements and we can’t see any consequence. We have huge problems with enforcement. We heard testimony that they felt that the DFO didn’t have the capacity or the interest. I’m struggling here. Help me with that.
Ms. Buie: Certainly. Thank you for the question. We have heard that too because we are in constant communication with our stakeholders around the application of the inshore regulations. Just keep in mind that, while it has been since 1979, it has been two years since it has been enshrined in our legislative suite of tools.
We have been building that capacity and those tools over the past two years. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, we have gone through a significant number of administrative reviews of inshore licences, both targeted and non-targetted. Our goal is to bring these licence holders into compliance with our regulations.
We have also put a large amount of information on our website, as I also noticed, with guidelines on how to meet regulations and how not to enter into controlling agreements. We are being very open and transparent with the number of people that we have reviewed and that we have brought into compliance.
From DFO’s perspective, we have been improving our tools as we go along. We have been undertaking more administrative reviews of the licences. We count on our harvesters and other industry stakeholders to advise us when they see that there could be controlling agreements and then take the appropriate action.
In terms of conservation and protection as I noted in my opening remarks as well, a considerable skill set is required to undertake these reviews in terms of forensic accounting and whatnot. We have a dedicated core group within the enforcement branch that is undertaking these reviews, but these take time. Furthermore, they take a considerable amount of time even once they get the information needed to bring it to the public prosecution service and then work with them in the justice system.
I think we have undertaken a lot of action in the last two years. We have been in constant communication with our stakeholders. They’re the ones that helped us write the regulations. We have a process in place. Again, our goal is not to be punitive but to bring the harvesters into compliance with the regulations. So we work with them. If there is any message I want to leave you with today, that is: We are trying to work with them to bring them into compliance.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you for that information. I appreciate it. However, that still doesn’t answer the disconnect. If you are working — and there is no reason to think that you’re not working hard on doing this, somehow that message either is not getting through or we weren’t hearing that message from people. That disconnect continues.
The question remains: Why is it that we are hearing from them about all these concerns that you are saying you are trying to fix? I don’t understand where that disconnect is. I don’t think we heard from anyone saying that DFO was trying to work on this and we are really pleased that they’re working on it. We want to work with them. We didn’t hear that from anyone that I can recall. Somewhere, there is a problem. Where is the problem?
Ms. Buie: Perhaps I’ll turn to my colleague, Jennifer Mooney, the director of our national licensing system, to respond.
Ms. Mooney: Thank you for the question. In terms of helping understand the disconnect, there are different metrics of success. I think, rightfully, what you have heard from the industry is that we haven’t yet cancelled any licences due to the implementation of inshore regulations. I have certainly heard from them as well that that is one of their key metrics of success, namely, how many licences have been cancelled. We have others.
As Ms. Buie has already mentioned, we work with licence holders to bring them into compliance. We have reviewed the eligibility of approximately 20% of licence holders within the inshore regulations. We have also done spot checks in certain fisheries in certain regional areas where we have found instances where licence holders would need to, for example, adjust their corporate structure, adjust their loan agreements so they are not in controlling agreements, for example.
I think our metrics of success and the industry’s are different. The regulations themselves were designed in such a way, as Ms. Buie mentioned, to bring licence holders in compliance with the regulations. They do rightfully have concerns. On our public-facing website, we have provided information lines, for example, where, if licence holders or associations are hearing concerns on the water or hearing concerns that certain licence holders may be in controlling agreements, there are avenues where that information can be anonymously provided to the department and Conservation and Protection, or C and P staff, can then go and investigate. That may help address a bit of the gap in what you are hearing.
Senator Kutcher: One of the suggestions we have heard was to create a task force between DFO and the harvesters to try to sit down and deal with this issue. I’m impressed to hear the good work that you are doing. However, I’m also concerned that somehow we’re not getting that warm and fuzzy feeling from the harvesters saying, “Yes, they’re doing great stuff. We want to work with them.” We’re just not getting it.
I do hear what you’re saying, and I appreciate it very much, but it’s still not going to solve the problem. There is a problem here; how is that problem going to be solved? Putting information on a website is good, but the fishers who I know don’t sit there and look at the DFO website. They’re doing other things. What strategy do you have to deal with this disconnect? Do you have a strategy, or would it be good to create one?
Ms. Mooney: We do. What I would add is that from a case management perspective, we have integrated national headquarters and regional licensing officers, where we work collectively together on case management. Our strategy has been, for example, when licence holders come forward to look to transfer their licence, we do an in-depth review of that licence holder’s eligibility and the perspective licence holder’s eligibility under the regulations before we reissue the licence to them. That is happening. We have a robust working level and executive level committee that governs that process and is involved in case management and in taking decisions so that we are implementing inshore regulations in a consistent way across the department and that we are taking licensing decisions in a consistent way across the department.
In terms of outreach, certainly Ms. Buie and I have been available and have participated in various meetings with associations and licence holders with respect to ensure rate implementation. We’re certainly happy to continue to do that. As to whether that outreach is broad or wide enough, I certainly would be interested in the committee’s recommendations and willing to consider what more we can do with respect to broader outreach, including in rural communities as you had mentioned.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you.
The Chair: We have heard from some witnesses in relation to young people — I come from Newfoundland and Labrador, so I’m very familiar with this — and the roadblocks to getting young people into the fishing industry. We have an aging population, as we’re all aware. Some of the roadblocks now versus 20 years ago are the cost associated with getting into the fishery. A young person approached me a while ago who is working toward their levels and reached that — I forgot the number off the top of my head now, I think we have 2,000 level two people in Newfoundland and Labrador that don’t have licences that are eligible to have licences. They approached one of the local banks and financial institutions, and you’re talking $1 million plus to get into the industry in this particular case. The bank wasn’t very cooperative, as you may understand. So they go to deal with the local fish companies and there seems to be a grey cloud around that because of the controlling agreements and because of how loans are structured, or whatever the case may be. I know some people through your work are working away from the controlling agreements and reaching some other agreement.
I’m wondering, from the department’s point of view, for a young person who is eligible to obtain a licence today who is not getting a green light from a local financial institution, what advice do you have for that person? As a senator and former parliamentarian in the House of Commons, people come to me asking from time to time for advice or suggestions on how they can get around hurdles. I’m kind of in a grey area on that one myself because you don’t want to send them down a path where they’re not going to have any success. I ask if you could touch on that, Ms. Buie or Ms. Mooney.
Ms. Buie: Thank you, chair, for the question. I think that’s a concern for the departments as well, first with the recognition that the price of licences has increased substantially over the last number of years and that it’s very difficult for young people to get into the fishery. We do know there is an aging cohort of harvesters who have been in the fishery for a number of years, they want to pass on their licences and we do have the tools and mechanisms to do that in terms of passing off licences to family members.
In terms of the new entrants who maybe don’t have a licence in the family that they can inherit, it is a very difficult situation. I know, as you mentioned, that there are agreements through processing facilities and other financial institutions that provide the financial boost to a young person to be able to enter into the fishery. Through these regulations we want to ensure that those agreements meet the objectives of our inshore regulations and that they’re not controlling ones. For example, that they have an exit clause in them so that the harvester can exit that agreement at a certain time. Also, that they’re not going to be indebted to the processor in perpetuity. Those are the types of things that Ms. Mooney was speaking to. Those are the triggers that we look for when we’re looking at our inshore regulations and we’re trying to apply when we do our investigations on them.
Perhaps I should turn to my regional colleagues, either Mr. Wentzell or Ms. Lemire if they have specific regional ideas on that as well.
Mr. Wentzell: Thank you so much. To build on what my colleague said and your comment, chair, which certainly resonates with me because there is a stigma around entering into loan agreements with processors in coastal communities, and it relates back to some of the earlier questions about the work that we need to do to engage on the ground in terms of what is appropriate and what is not appropriate in terms of regulation. Entering into agreements with processors has been a long-standing practice, but that does not mean that there is a controlling agreement in terms of how the licence is fished, operated or reissued. We need to be really clear in our communications on the ground that harvesters may, in fact, access funds and capital for those reasons, but that does not necessarily mean they’re in a controlling agreement.
The other thing is that we have a lot of programs that are delivered in partnership with our provincial counterparts to help young people get into the fishery in partnership with existing harvesters, as crew, et cetera. That’s one of the key features of some of our collaborative work with other partners that are involved in the overall management of the fishery.
As a final point, I would also say that we have been getting input from harvester associations around what the department is going to do when we eventually get to the point of maybe pulling a licence back as a result of an established and confirmed controlling agreement. I anticipate that as we continue down this road and engage in enforcement that we will reach those outcomes. Those are live discussions that may form a possible avenue to provide a pool of access for new entrants.
Getting to the earlier comments of the various interests that we’re working to balance, we also have Indigenous groups seeking access to further implement rights. As we identify and allocate access from processes that we are engaged in, we will need to make sure that we balance all of that. These are all pieces that are active, live discussions with our stakeholders and partners on the ground. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator R. Patterson: I would like to follow up on Senator Kutcher’s question and probably direct this toward your regional counterparts. It’s specifically about the controlling agreements.
I’m new to the committee, so I’m learning as I go, but I am very interested to hear what you are hearing regionally about the impact of these controlling agreements on the regional fisheries.
Certainly in Quebec, I certainly know some of my other colleagues have had some feedback that continues to be a great barrier to continuing to expand the industry, so I’m quite curious what you are hearing in terms of feedback in your roles as the federal officials in the region. Thank you.
[Translation]
Ms. Lemire: Thank you for the question. Some industry representatives do talk about the existence of controlling agreements. We then invite them to provide us with more information; there are ways they can disclose information to us in a confidential manner. From that point on, we are alert to any additional elements that could lead us to believe that there is a controlling agreement. In fact, all licence reassignment requests are routinely reviewed before the licence is transferred to the recipient to ensure that there is not a controlling agreement or issue.
So, people must provide us with all agreement documentation for review before we proceed with reassignment. This includes any financial agreement whatsoever. They’re checked against checklists that our licensing officers have, and as soon as there are triggers, it leads us to request additional documentation or further analysis. So, we make sure that we push our analysis as far as we can to ensure that the agreements that are in place are in compliance with the regulations before we reassign the licence to the recipient.
This exercise is routinely done for any licence reassignment request. We also conduct what we call “non-targeted reviews.” This is a random sampling of licence holders. We draw the names of licence holders for a given fleet and we check with the identified holders to ensure that they are in compliance with the regulations. They are sent questionnaires and then documentation is requested and a full review is conducted to confirm their eligibility.
In some cases, there may be items that are not necessarily compliant, so we work with the licence holder to ensure they are in compliance. In the Quebec region, the various reviews to date have resulted in compliance with the regulations.
Senator R. Patterson: Thank you for the response; the process is really clear.
How does the Quebec fishing community react to the controlling agreements in terms of individuals, rather than the process and complaints, if you will?
Ms. Lemire: To date, the department has not received a formal complaint. We’ve just had a few discussions with association representatives who have told us that they suspect there are controlling agreements in place, but we haven’t received any formal complaints through the channels that are in place.
[English]
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you very much. I’m really pleased that both Senator Ravalia and Senator Kutcher touched on the few areas that I was thinking about today. I want to come back to a question that involves more stepping back. We do hear the different perceptions from the licensing folks. I’m going to call it from the folks on the ground. Everyone in this room wants fishing, as a profession, to thrive and for our fishery people to be able to do the work they need to do but also to be accountable.
I’m going to start with the folks that are virtual today. With the work that you’re doing day to day, do you take the chance to sit back and think about how it is creating obstacles for our folks on the ground? How is it supporting the whole fishing industry so that we can see it as a next generation, viable, exciting, hopeful part of our Canadian economy? I’m wondering about that piece. What is it that you are doing to create hope and efficiency and what is it that is still an obstacle for the work that you’re doing?
Mr. Wentzell: Thank you so much, senator. In the discussions that I have with the fishing industry in the Maritimes region, it is abundantly clear that the importance of commercial fishing for Indigenous and for coastal communities are key. If you look around Nova Scotia and the coast of New Brunswick, we have many communities that, frankly, exist because of commercial fishing. The importance of this particular piece of legislation and what we’re trying to do to enforce the inshore regs is important because when local harvesters control both their licence and the income and benefits that are coming from that licence, they’re able to support themselves, they’re able to support their families and their local communities versus those benefits and that income being channelled elsewhere, to more centralized and corporate entities.
That’s a valid question. The challenge that both the team and I have had as we’ve been doing this work over the past two years is that it does take time, as we’ve talked about. We’ve been very transparent in sharing with harvester associations what we’re doing, the metrics. We’re able to confirm that our enforcement partners in Conservation and Protection are taking on investigations. We’re trying to give assurances in what we’re doing and the fact that that work may take some time.
In terms of general optimism, we’re fortunate that we’ve got a number of fisheries, through the good work of industry, coastal communities and Indigenous communities in conservation, taking the steps that they need to take to ensure that we have prosperity in the future. There is a high level of optimism. There’s a piece in CBC this morning that talks about lobster abundance and the work of the Fishermen & Scientists Research Society. They have been working with us on conservation for many years.
I think there is optimism in terms of the resource and the work that is being done to support conservation. I think this work ties into ensuring that the benefits continue to flow to the coastal communities that are doing that hard work. There is optimism, but there is definitely a high level of interest and, therefore, accountability that rests on the department to deliver on these important regulations.
Senator M. Deacon: I’m not sure if anyone else would like to respond or not, so I’ll give you the opportunity. Thank you.
Senator Ravalia: Ms. Buie, in your opening remarks, you reported a total of 1,724 licence holders had been reviewed and in 623 cases additional information was requested by DFO. You also said 37 fishers provided new agreements that now comply with your regulations.
Were there any cases where DFO found non-compliance of the regulations? Ms. Mooney earlier alluded to the fact that no licences have been revoked. Is there any concern at all on the part of regulations and non-compliance?
Ms. Buie: Thank you so much for the question, senator. For those 37 that entered into new agreements to become compliant with our regulations, they were identified as having some sort of controlling agreement in place. That’s why we worked hand in hand with them to become compliant with our regulations; that is, entering into new agreements that complied with our regulations.
If you indulge me, I’ll turn to Ms. Mooney to see if she has any further details.
Ms. Mooney: Thank you. That’s a good illustration of the work that we’re doing to bring licence holders into compliance.
In these cases, they have been assessed for eligibility. As I had mentioned earlier, when a licence holder looks to transfer their licence to another licence holder, both parties are reviewed. So the metrics mentioned are a good indication that we are making progress and reviewing licence holder’s eligibility.
While we have only so far looked at about 20% of licence holders out of the 10,000 insured licence holders in Eastern Canada, as we continue to work to implement the regulations, we continue to do our targeted and non-targeted reviews. We’ll keep working with licence holders and ensuring that if we do find areas where we have concerns that they may be in controlling agreements, that they are adjusting their corporate structures or their financial arrangements to be compliant with the regulations.
Senator Ravalia: Were you surprised that you didn’t have to revoke any licences at all?
Ms. Mooney: I will say that we have a very clearly defined process, including in the regulations. Our process is that we do work with licence holders to enable them to become compliant. If there are cases where we have determined, based on all available information, a concern that they are not eligible to hold an inshore licence we have a formal process where we issue them a letter. They have 10 days to provide the department with any additional information. At that point, the department considers that information, and we make a determination on their eligibility at that point. If we determine at that point that they are not eligible to hold a licence, they are not allowed to fish, and they have 12 months to become compliant with the regulations. So they still have a 12-month period to become compliant with the regulations. This is set out in regulation.
I know it is a concern of the industry as well, that they feel some licence holders may be in controlling agreements. There is a process — what some may say is a lengthy process — to become compliant with the regulations. But it does go back to previous points made as well that licensing is not meant to be punitive, but we do want to ensure that inshore licence holders are controlling their business on the water and off the water. On the water, they’re making decisions on who’s fishing on their boat. They’re personally fishing the licence. They designate sub-operators. Off the water, they are in control of their business and are receiving the benefits. They are the beneficiaries of that licence.
The Chair: One of our senators who was unable to join us this morning, Senator McPhedran, sent some questions. Time doesn’t allow me to ask all of her questions, but for the record, I want to put one here. This is from Senator McPhedran:
Witnesses who have testified before the committee in the past several weeks have stated that DFO was underfunded and lacks capacity to implement its programs, support local fishing communities and engage in the enforcement of the regulations. Are DFO’s efforts being hindered by a lack of funding or expertise, and what resources would DFO need to enforce the regulations, or is there any recommendations that you would feel free to make to us that we can think about putting in our report to assist the work that you do?
Ms. Buie: Thank you for that question, chair. I would say that we do have a core unit of Conservation and Protection officers who are responsible for undertaking some of that more detailed forensic accounting of potential controlling agreements. I believe Conservation and Protection also has intake officers in various regional area offices so that they can communicate with harvesters and receive tips and other information regarding potential instances of controlling agreements.
At this juncture, we do have quite a good capacity, I would say, on the conservation and protection front. Of course, we’ve only undertaken about 20% of the licensing reviews. With more capacity, we would be able to undertake more of those types of activities.
As Ms. Mooney described, we have various administrative committees within DFO, both regional folks and HQ officials, that take the time to go through all this material collaboratively. There is an executive committee as well.
We are well set up and aligned internally to undertake a wide variety of reviews of licences. But as I stated, with increased resources and capacity, we could undertake more. I think that’s the case with many different processes within the department.
The Chair: Thank you to our witnesses this morning and to the senators for your questions. It has been a very interesting conservation.
Before we proceed, I missed something at the beginning of our meeting and I want to take care of that right now. I would like to formally welcome Senator Patterson, who has become a permanent member of our committee. We look forward to Senator R. Patterson bringing her expertise to the committee. Senator Deacon is here representing another senator this morning, and she is hoping to someday also become a permanent member of the committee. We are still working on that. It’s easy to get a letter of reference if you need one, Senator Deacon.
During our second panel, we will be hearing from the following witnesses from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, on the topic of recent reports of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. I’ll ask the witnesses to introduce themselves.
Kate Ladell, Director General, Biodiversity Management, Fisheries and Oceans Canada: Good morning and thank you so much for having me here. My name is Kate Ladell, Director General, Biodiversity Management in the Aquatic Ecosystems Sector at Fisheries and Oceans Canada.
Alexandra Dostal, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Aquatic Ecosystems, Fisheries and Oceans Canada: Hi there, Alexandra Dostal, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Aquatic Ecosystems and Fisheries Management at Fisheries and Oceans Canada.
[Translation]
Simon Nadeau, Director, Marine Mammals and Biodiversity Science, Fisheries and Oceans Canada: Good morning, my name is Simon Nadeau and I am the Director of Marine Mammals and Biodiversity Science, Fisheries and Oceans Canada.
[English]
Ms. Buie: Good morning, again. I am Jennifer Buie, Acting Director General of Fisheries Resources Management and Aquatic Ecosystems.
The Chair: Good morning. I understand that Ms. Dostal has some opening remarks. When you are finished, I’m sure our senators will have questions for you.
Ms. Dostal: Good afternoon, senators. My name is Alexandra Dostal, and I am here with my colleagues from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. We are thrilled to have the opportunity to be here today and before this committee on behalf of the department.
Today, we will speak to two of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development’s Reports, which were tabled in Parliament in October 2022. These include Protecting of Aquatic Species at Risk and Departmental Progress in Implementing Sustainable Development Strategies — Healthy Coasts and Oceans, Pristine Lakes and Rivers, and Sustainable Food.
[Translation]
By tabling these audit reports, the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development has provided parliamentarians and Canadians with independent analysis and recommendations on how Fisheries and Oceans Canada, in collaboration with others, can more effectively manage its activities, responsibilities, and resources related to aquatic species at risk.
We thank the commissioner for his work and acknowledge the report’s conclusions. Moreover, we have agreed to all of the recommendations and are taking action to address them. The commissioner’s call to action raises awareness of the biodiversity crisis and challenges the government and its partners to deliver the best possible environmental outcomes for Canadians, now and for future generations.
[English]
Canadians want assurances that the federal government has solid scientific information and that it is working in close collaboration with other jurisdictions and partners across the country, making timely and evidence-based listing decisions based on clear and objective analyses, and has enforcement and compliance capacity required to protect and recover Canada’s aquatic species at risk.
As a science-based organization, Fisheries and Oceans Canada fully recognizes the importance of robust scientific information to support decision making. Fisheries and Oceans Canada collects new information on aquatic species on an ongoing basis to ensure that data and information on population status and trends inform the prioritization and assessment of species.
The successful protection and recovery of Canada’s aquatic species at risk is a shared responsibility. To this end, the department relies on close collaboration with other federal departments, provinces and territories, Indigenous peoples, non-governmental organizations, and more broadly, all Canadians when taking action to recover and protect aquatic species at risk. Fisheries and Oceans Canada works with partners to advance stewardship and recovery projects across Canada. Investments made under the recent Nature Legacy initiative have helped to lay the foundation for work that is under way to shift from a single-species to a multi-species approach for recovery and protection, where it makes sense to do so.
[Translation]
At the federal level, Fisheries and Oceans Canada works closely with Environment and Climate Change Canada and Parks Canada to ensure the successful implementation of the Species at Risk Act and its objectives. To further clarify roles and responsibilities, Fisheries and Oceans Canada and Environment and Climate Change Canada officials are working together to develop a memorandum of understanding that will better document partnerships, collaboration and information-sharing activities.
Collaboration with provincial and territorial jurisdictions is a foundational element of Species at Risk Act implementation. Fisheries and Oceans Canada will continue to work closely with provincial and territorial counterparts to share and gather information on aquatic species at risk in support of evidence-based decision making.
[English]
More broadly, Fisheries and Oceans Canada leads a variety of online, in-person and on-the-water outreach and engagement activities with Canadians from coast to coast to coast and is committed to supporting their efforts to protect and recover aquatic species at risk. The department will take into account best practices to ensure that these outreach and engagement activities are effective.
The audit also put forth findings on the timeliness and methodology related to the species listing processes. Fisheries and Oceans Canada agrees that timely and evidence-based listing decisions are critical to ensuring that aquatic species can benefit from the appropriate protections. The department will continue to look at ways to streamline departmental listing processes wherever possible, noting that certain elements should not be rushed, including consultations with Indigenous partners and engagement with wildlife management boards. Fisheries and Oceans Canada is also taking action to improve guidance, tracking and documentation practises, to help ensure that analyses in support of listing decisions are clear, objective and well documented.
Regarding the department’s compliance and enforcement capacity, Fisheries and Oceans Canada will continue to take steps to increase the number of fishery officers to fill nationwide vacancies and to improve data collection and consistency to report on enforcement and compliance activities.
While Fisheries and Oceans Canada prioritizes the conservation and protection of all aquatic species, the department must also consider other obligations, such as Indigenous fisheries rights and the economic realities of coastal communities, among other factors, when developing listing recommendations. Fisheries and Oceans Canada relies on sound, scientific information, socio-economic analysis and public consultations to provide listing recommendations that are in the best interests of all Canadians.
When aquatic species at risk are not listed under the Species at Risk Act, the department continues to provide protections in accordance with legislative and regulatory requirements under the Fisheries Act, including such things as the fish stock provisions and the development, implementation and evaluation of species-focused fishery management plans, as appropriate. In addition, Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s policies, such as the Precautionary Approach Framework, provide for measures that protect stocks. To put it simply, a species not being listed under the Species at Risk Act does not mean the absence of protection.
Turning to the audit on Departmental Progress in Implementing Sustainable Development Strategies, the report highlights an opportunity for the department to provide Canadians and parliamentarians with greater detail on the conservation and recovery activities under way to better demonstrate progress toward meeting the federal species at risk targets.
[Translation]
More specifically, the commissioner noted that departmental actions related to species at risk outlined in Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s Departmental Sustainable Development Strategy should include additional information on the development of recovery strategies, management plans, action plans and monitoring activities.
We are in agreement with this recommendation. Our next sustainable development strategy will include a comprehensive suite of actions and associated performance measurements that showcase all the elements of the important work underway to support the protection and recovery of aquatic species at risk.
We will also be reexamining the performance measurement for our Departmental Sustainable Development Strategy to ensure that it is specific and relevant, and includes time-bound targets that we can use to demonstrate progress.
In support of the federal target on population objectives for species at risk, Fisheries and Oceans Canada will continue to make full use of the legislative and regulatory tools at its disposal to enhance protections and further recovery of Canada’s aquatic species at risk. This work will be done alongside federal partners, provinces and territories, Indigenous peoples and stakeholders.
[English]
Trends in species populations and distribution will continue to be reported on annually, in collaboration with Environment and Climate Change Canada as the federal lead for species at risk population trends and the Canadian Environmental Sustainability Indicators.
We note, however, that species recovery is affected by many factors, including the species’ life span; reproductive cycle; the state of their habitat; and threats such as habitat loss, pollution and climate change.
Further, we welcome this opportunity to provide additional information on how the department is supporting the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. We will collaborate with our colleagues at Environment and Climate Change Canada and the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat to ensure we are reporting this information as per their revised guidance.
This work will be evident in our next Departmental Sustainable Development Strategy, which will be released in the fall of 2023, in support of the goals and targets of the 2022-2026 Federal Sustainable Development Strategy.
In closing, Fisheries and Oceans Canada is committed to fulfilling its role in protecting aquatic species at risk using the legislative and regulatory tools at its disposal, notably the Species at Risk Act and the Fisheries Act. Departmental officials will continue to make full use of these legislative tools while working with partners from coast to coast to coast to enhance protections and further the recovery of Canada’s aquatic species at risk.
Thank you for your attention. We would now welcome your questions.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Dostal. I want to let everybody know that we have a hard stop at 11 a.m. I don’t like interfering with questions or answers. I like to give everybody a chance to say what they need to say. But if I need to, I’ll bring down the hammer. I wanted to let you know in advance.
Senator Francis: Why has Canada not applied the Species at Risk Act to protect dwindling fish populations like Pacific salmon, one of the most commercially important species in the country? At least 48 populations of Pacific salmon and trout are at risk of disappearing. Why are commercially lucrative fish less likely to be protected under this regime?
Ms. Dostal: As I mentioned in the opening remarks, the audit here looked at one piece of legislation, the Species at Risk Act. Within Fisheries and Oceans Canada, we have a suite of tools that we use to protect aquatic species at risk. To the extent that there are species not listed under the Species at Risk Act, it doesn’t mean that there’s an absence of protection.
You mentioned commercially fished species, for example, that are not listed. I’m happy to have my colleague Jennifer Buie speak more to our fish stock provisions, but under the Fisheries Act we have a suite of tools that allow us to protect species even if they are not listed under the Species at Risk Act. For some of the species or populations you have mentioned, including Pacific salmon, listing consideration is ongoing right now. My colleague Kate Ladell can speak more to that. With that, I’ll turn to my colleague Ms. Buie for anything she’d like to add on the Fisheries Act.
Ms. Buie: Thank you, Ms. Dostal. As you mentioned in your opening remarks, we view the management of fisheries through an integrated lens. We looked at a variety of factors regarding how we manage these fisheries. As Ms. Dostal mentioned, since last year, we have these fish stock provisions within the Fisheries Act that provide additional protections to fisheries as we manage them. If they fall to a certain level, we automatically put in place rebuilding plans which allow us to recover the stock to more healthy levels.
In the case of salmon on the West Coast, there are a number of socio-economic factors at play as well as we manage the fisheries. We work in consultation and collaboration not only with First Nations but also with other stakeholders, such as the recreational sector and the Province of British Columbia. Through that integrated lens that I spoke of, we have put in place a number of measures that sustain the important populations of salmon and trout and lessen the fishing pressure when we notice the stocks are in peril.
Ms. Dostal: If I may add one additional piece of information that I should have mentioned. You also mentioned Pacific salmon. A few years ago, the government announced the Pacific Salmon Strategy Initiative, which is a $647 million investment being deployed by Fisheries and Oceans Canada for a suite of activities in support of recovering Pacific salmon. I wanted to add that.
Ms. Ladell: One thing I will reassure you of is that there are 62 designatable units. When we speak about species at risk, those are identified based on populations or designatable units. There are 62 for Pacific salmon, 43 of which were found to be at risk. All 43 of those are currently undergoing analysis to work them through the listing process whether they can be listed, not listed or referred back. That work is actively under way.
Senator Francis: Thank you.
Senator Ravalia: Thank you to our witnesses. I’m approaching this as a citizen of a rural community that was part of the cod moratorium 31 years ago. My community has been waiting 31 years for recovery of the cod stocks. A number of factors have been alluded to as to why this recovery hasn’t happened. The information from DFO science generally tends to be contrary to what people on the ground are saying. One of the huge factors that repeatedly comes up is the burgeoning population of seals on the northeast coast of Newfoundland and Labrador.
I’m wondering, in terms of your work on this and in your science, what are you hearing? Why are we seeing an ongoing vulnerability in this critical fishery?
Mr. Nadeau: Thank you for your question, Senator Ravalia. In terms of cod stocks, you are right. All the major commercial cod stocks are in the critical zone. This is true because of a variety of factors and different threats affecting these species. There are major environmental changes in these ecosystems in temperature and other oceanographic parameters. There is one stock of cod that DFO has shown that since 2010 has been impacted by seal predation, and that is the southern Gulf cod stocks. Grey seal predation is preventing the recovery of that stock. It is a key mortality factor.
With other stocks, we have not demonstrated an impact of seal predation on the trajectory or population dynamic of cod stocks. For example, for cod stocks out of Newfoundland, one of the main factors is actually forage fish availability. These fish are, like capelin, more influenced by primary productivity, meaning the food available to them, the temperature regime and all that. That has a domino effect on predators such as cod.
We are continuing to study the ecology of these different stocks and the different factors affecting them. The department has taken key measures to reduce one of the factors we can act on, which is fishing.
Senator Ravalia: The recent Global Biodiversity Framework talking about protecting 30% of oceans by 2030 is obviously something you will be working closely with. To what extent do you see adhering to some of these principles impacting positive recovery of some of the vulnerability our species within Canadian waters?
Ms. Dostal: That’s a great question. Within Canada, we have two targets. We are tracking to protect 25% of Canada’s oceans by 2025 and 30% by 2030, in line with the recent Global Biodiversity Framework. These pieces are inexorably linked. When we think about protecting Canadian waters and oceans, we have conservation objectives for what we are looking to protect in these areas. When we pick where we protect, it is because we are looking at conservation objectives, biodiversity and outcomes.
You are correct, the linkage between these pieces is absolutely fundamental. As we work on both of these within the department, work on both of these initiatives sit all within the same sector. We are very closely aligned as we work on these different pieces together.
Ms. Ladell: In addition to what Ms. Dostal said, this is one of the approaches that was recognized in the investments in 2018, and then again in 2021 through the Nature Legacy initiative and the Enhanced Nature Legacy initiative. In 2018, the Nature Legacy initiative was the largest investment in biodiversity to date, it was a recognition we can’t continue to take a single-species approach but that we need to be looking at protecting our ecosystems. Through the Nature Legacy initiative, what we have done is look at how we can create place-based and threat-based approaches, and we are looking at how we can identify some of those priority threats. When we are looking in aquatic ecosystems or marine ecosystems, there is a good chance that if seal predation is affecting once species of cod, it could also be affecting other species, whether it’s cod or others. We are looking at how we can target our actions so that we are not doing all of this for one designatable unit of cod and doing that in isolation from the broader ecosystem. Our area of focus right now is looking at how we can consolidate those investments so we can get more bang for our buck and real on-the-water results that result in the recovery of species at risk.
Senator Ravalia: Thank you.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you for being here. It was great to read the transcripts of the House of Commons from the fall, and it’s certainly an important step. It is even greater to see our research teams, our young people, out on the water in the habitat. I’m sitting there trying to figure out what they’re doing and then finding out that what they’re doing has nothing to do with what I thought. It is really great seeing folks literally in the water and discussing fish at fisheries.
I want to go back and talk a bit about the research and protection of aquatic species and what was said in the report. In the report, there was an acknowledgement of a gap between what we call aquatic species with commercial value and other aquatic species under the umbrella of responsibility of Fisheries and Oceans Canada. As a result, the audit warns us that without a change in the manner in which Fisheries and Oceans Canada collects information on all aquatic species, there will be a measurable impact on the ecosystem health.
How is Fisheries and Oceans Canada planning on addressing this concern? You talked about some evidence pieces earlier in the introduction, but I didn’t catch this. What measures have already been implemented, and have they been effective in starting to show promise in closing the gap?
Mr. Nadeau: I should start by saying a lot of our research and monitoring activities in the department are done in support of our management decisions. Whether it be for fisheries to support the habitat provisions of the Fisheries Act or the Species at Risk Act when species are listed or to support listing decisions for species assessed by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, or COSEWIC. We have all these mandates and science, and our monitoring is very much geared toward supporting these decisions.
I should say that there are a lot of species in this country. There is a report called the Wild Species 2020: The General Status of Species in Canada, and departments, provinces and territories are working together to give a general picture of wildlife in Canada. That doesn’t appear in the OAG reports. Out of the 50,000 species that were assessed in the last report in 2020, a little less than 3,000 are aquatic. Of these, about 2,600 are marine, and these are strictly DFO’s responsibility. There is a smaller group of species that are fresh water, which are a shared responsibility with the provinces and territories.
For both marine and freshwater species, some are used by humans. They are either harvested or used for a variety of reasons. On both the provincial and federal side, we have to make management decisions to prevent a decline in these species to maintain sustainability of their population. So that is where our efforts are focused.
In targeting these species or supporting these decisions, as Ms. Ladell said, we are actually also generating information for other species that are not of commercial interest. This information is used, for example, by COSEWIC to confer a conservation status to these non-commercial species.
For freshwater species specifically, if they are not managed by DFO, we actually count on our provincial and territorial colleagues to collect information. Until there is a decision to list these species under the Endangered Species Act, we are very much counting on our provincial and territorial colleagues to generate the science and the monitoring of these species.
If the decision is actually made to list them, then that gives us specific responsibilities under the Species at Risk Act, and then we take on these responsibilities and focus our priority activities to support these species as well.
Senator M. Deacon: You just mentioned freshwater and saltwater. I want to take that second part, and that is looking at the rate of extinction of freshwater and saltwater species in Canada.
In the appearance and the notes of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, he explained that the most aquatic species that have gone extinct in Canada have been freshwater. I’m just now catching some of the jurisdictional pieces that you just talked about.
The audit conducted found that this was most dominant in the Arctic, Ontario and Prairie region. My wonder is this is where Canada has most of its fresh water. Are the freshwater species more prone to extinction? It is something to do with the piece that you were just alluding to? Is there any insight you could share with me there?
Mr. Nadeau: The vast majority of Canadian biodiversity, including aquatic biodiversity, is in the South, so close to where human beings are. That gives you a picture of where the threats are to our biodiversity. It’s really in the South. Some of these species are peripheral. They are marginally present in our country and much more abundant south of the border.
Ms. Dostal: In terms of fresh water, there is a lot of science going in the fresh water space, but there are also a number of programs we have — some of which fall under Ms. Ladell’s responsibility — that actually help support protection of species in fresh water.
She talked a few minutes ago about the Nature Legacy initiative and the Enhanced Nature Legacy initiative. Under those initiatives, she mentioned the notion of priority places and priority species. In fact, one of the priority places under this is the Lower Great Lakes watershed. This is really targeted investment toward protecting the biodiversity and the ecosystems in that area. That’s one of a suite of programs that we have to be able to protect in the freshwater environment as well.
Ms. Ladell: Building on that, it is an important nuance that Mr. Nadeau was saying in terms of whether a species has been listed or not. One of the important fundamentals of the Nature Legacy Initiative was to really look at how we can recover those species that are not doing well, whether they’ve been listed or not.
Certainly, the available funding has been critical to supporting stewardship projects. Canada Nature Fund for Aquatic Species at Risk has funded over 80 projects with benefits to over 130 species, whether they are COSEWIC assessed — Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, the assessment arm — whether they’ve assessed them but not yet been listed or whether they’ve been listed.
For fresh water specifically, we’re currently funding 46 projects that are benefiting over 50 freshwater species at risk in Canada.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you all for being here. My questions will be in two distinct areas, one about Marine Protected Areas and then something a little different.
We have had a tremendous amount of interest in the last couple of years on Marine Protected Areas. We’re into 30 by 30 now. The Montréal conference addressed them. There was an international meeting in February in Vancouver. The environment minister just announced a First Nations Guardians Network associated with this.
Some of this work is coming from Environment, and some is coming from DFO. What processes do you have in place so that you work collaboratively on identifying where the priority areas are for establishing common goals and ensuring that your outcomes are synchronized?
Ms. Dostal: Thanks for that great question. While this wasn’t covered in the audit, certainly important work is being undertaken across government. Perhaps to answer within the federal family, both DFO, Parks Canada and Environment and Climate Change Canada all collectively have responsibilities toward meeting these goals, both from a terrestrial standpoint for Parks Canada and ECCC, and Fisheries and Ocean and the other two from a marine perspective. So very close interface from an officials level and across government between those organizations and others, frankly, that have a role to play in this.
In terms of how we come up with looking at what our sites will be and then how we’re actually going to implement them, this is something that’s done in collaboration with Canadians as well, so with key partners and stakeholders. I say that because when we think about what areas we’re going to protect, as I mentioned in a previous answer, we look to what the conservation objectives are, because the objective is not just to protect water where there is no reason to protect it. It is really to look at what we need to protect and why it is worth protecting and to look at the conservation objectives and with biodiversity-enhancing outcomes. Those we do collect within the department, but we also work very closely with local partners, Indigenous groups, provinces and territories, and Canadians in general to identify those areas.
Once an area has been identified, we do continue to do monitoring and enforcement to make sure the protection is real protection. Again, this is very much done in concert with partners.
Senator Kutcher: Good. Thank you for that. Is this a formal structure that you have with Environment, that you have ongoing, regular conversations?
Ms. Dostal: We do, yes, at all levels. We have various committees that we meet with regularly. In fact, I meet with my counterparts at ECCC and Parks Canada almost on a weekly basis — very regularly. We also have committees that will bring in other departments that have roles to play as well. This could be CIRNAC, for example. We have larger committees, and that is at the ADM level, DG, all through the organizations that meet regularly to ensure that we’re moving collectively toward the targets and outcomes.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you. My second set of questions isn’t exactly from the report, but it’s important because it’s downstream — pardon the pun — to the report, and it is with changes in climate — this is our existential crisis — and the warming of the planet.
There are substantive differences in the ocean conveyor belt, in oxygenation levels in the water, the acidification, and huge changes in shoreline habitat, which has a direct impact on species. We now know that the North Atlantic carbon sink is under huge threat. We’re not exactly sure what degree of warming is going to release all that carbon.
Within DFO, do you have the mathematical modelling capacity to work with this myriad of potential data points, the computing capacity, the mathematical modellers that you need to actually see not just what’s happening with species at risk now but predicting what these changes are going to be and what impact they’re going to have on the species? That’s the first part of the question.
Mr. Nadeau: Thank you, senator, for your question. That’s a very good question.
We do have a program investing in oceanography and oceanographic parameters, and we have modellers doing some monitoring of key parameters at sea and then trying to see how they evolve over time and anticipate what it’s going to mean for biodiversity. That’s a key area. It’s a challenge because the environment is changing. It’s not a static situation. That’s certainly a big area of research within DFO.
Senator Kutcher: I’m going to push a bit on that in a friendly way. As you may know, I’m very interested in enhancing the scientific capacity within the federal government. What kinds of relationships do you have with academic institutions that do this work, or non-academic — the Bedford Institute of Oceanography being a classic example — or international organizations — NASA Science, for example — who do this high-level kind of work? What are those relationships? That’s a first question.
The second part of that is, is there anything that would help the department enhance its capacity from what this committee reports? I’ve got to be clear here. I have been very concerned that, as we have these new threats and challenges, we have to think not what do we need now, but what are we going to need 10 years in advance? We have to start building the capacity to actually study and respond proactively instead of retroactively. Help us help you.
Mr. Nadeau: Thank you for the question.
We have collaboration with universities and international organizations in the oceanographic research activities. We invest key resources. One of the key activities, as I mentioned before, is actually monitoring these parameters that are changing, modelling and doing models to actually understand the interplay between these parameters and the species we manage, for example. We’ve actually done that.
I’ll give you a tangible example of the North Atlantic right whale, which is not covered by the latest audit because marine mammals were not covered. The North Atlantic right whale was not present in Canada a few decades ago; they were confined to the Gulf of Maine and the Bay of Fundy.
When environmental conditions change and temperatures started to warm up, that started to affect the key food item, the crustaceans, shrimp-like animals called zooplankton. When changes started in the composition of these species and the nutrition content of these species, then whales started to explore new areas. That’s what pushed them to come to the Gulf of St. Lawrence.
In our whale research, we’re working with our colleagues on plankton and on oceanographic parameters to try to understand what has changed, and also try to anticipate these other areas where these whales could go to find their food and try to see what we could anticipate as the changes being in the future that will help us manage our activities around these changes.
That’s one example of what has actually changed in the last couple of decades, that people have seen what it meant for fisheries and Fisheries decisions that had to be made to protect that iconic North Atlantic right whale.
We are doing the best we can. We are investing resources. We are working with our international colleagues on that. We are also supporting Canadian research through our grants and contribution programs to enroll academia in this country to help us in this endeavour.
Ms. Ladell: If I may, I would add one response focused on what we need, I would say that the investments through the Enhanced Nature Legacy initiative enabled the department for the first time within the Species at Risk Program to build an information management and data program within our Species at Risk Program.
Data, and being able to track what we have, where it is, how it’s being stored, is critical to our ability to create a longitudinal time series of information around species at risk. Those investments are time-limited investments. I would say the continuity of those kinds of investments are critical. For example, we are building a recovery measures database for the first time, looking at all of the work that we’re doing in implementing the recovery documents that we have for those listed species. For the first time, we are tracking what measures are being undertaken where some of the gaps are, and where those gaps need to be filled?
That translates, of course, to climate change in terms of looking at how we are compiling information in a way that will enable us to be able to track and monitor over time.
Senator Kutcher: I’m very pleased to hear about that investment.
What I do not know, and can you help me, is that investment guaranteed for a prolonged period of time? What’s the continuation and sustainability of that investment? As you learn more, you’re going to need more data, capacity and modelling. You’re going to need more of that over time.
One of the things that I’ve seen over and over again is that Canada is a country of pilot projects. We invest once and we stop investing. When I hear you say that, I’m pleased, but I’m also concerned.
Can you help us understand what the long-term investment is on this important work?
Ms. Ladell: What I can tell you is what we have. I don’t think I’m in a position to be able to speak to the future state of the funding that we may or may not receive. Certainly, I think it’s a critical point, which is that, to date, the funding that the Species at Risk Program has received at Fisheries and Oceans Canada has been through, primarily, the injections of time-limited funding. B-based funding is the vernacular that we use. I don’t know if it’s shared here. That’s funding that comes in increments of a certain number of years.
That funding that I just spoke to, there were these two big investments in 2018 that was approximately $155 million over five years. This is the last fiscal year of that money. That’s something that we obviously would be looking to renew. Then the Enhanced Nature Legacy initiative which came in 2021 and goes through the fiscal year 2025-26; there is no guarantee that those levels of funding will be maintained beyond the last year.
Senator Kutcher: But it is essential, would you agree —
Ms. Ladell: It is absolutely essential.
Senator Kutcher: — that you have to have that funding support to continue this critical work, or you won’t be able to address the issues?
Ms. Ladell: I would absolutely agree with that.
Senator Kutcher: Can you say what I just said?
Ms. Ladell: You want me to repeat what you just said?
Senator Kutcher: There is a reason for that.
Ms. Ladell: Okay. I am of the opinion that it is essential to have stable, long-term funding for the Species at Risk Program at Fisheries and Oceans Canada.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you.
The Chair: That will be quoted in our report.
Senator R. Patterson: We didn’t plan this. I’m going to narrow in on that area as well. Species that are at risk cannot wait 10 years for federal funding, things on the critical risk — there will be no cod.
One of the key areas of decision making in government — and this is probably for yourself — is that there is integration of data across systems. We’re very good, federally and in the federal partnership, building silos of excellence and excellent information that becomes very hard to talk to one another.
You can have a timely picture, so that when you go out there and you look for that funding, you can say, “Ta-dah, we’ve got this.” Kate, you’ve answered quite a bit on the details side within the ecosystem that you’re trying to protect.
If I was to look at you, madam, and ask you, when you’re looking at data systems, data collection — getting into the corporate, crunchy bits — what do you think is required in order to better integrate data between departments to get a holistic picture of what is truly going on for Canadians in the whole aquatic environment?
Ms. Dostal: I can take the first part of that. I may turn to Mr. Nadeau who might have some views on this.
When we talk about data, we’re talking about all the pieces. What I can say is that the criticality of data is fundamental. It’s Species at Risk, but it’s actually across the suite of all of our programming.
Senator Kutcher asked a little while ago about Marine Protected Areas. Data about species at risk can help inform how we think about Marine Protected Areas. These are two programs. We have a suite of other programs that all interplay with one other. I don’t think I can answer in detail what it is we need specifically. Mr. Nadeau might have more to share on that.
What I can share with you is the importance of data within DFO. But your point is also true, which is what I was thinking about where I mentioned aquatic species where we have responsibility, but so does Parks Canada where it’s in parks, for example.
Taking it a step further, and this is one of the recommendations linked to a recommendation from the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, or CESD, we spoke about fresh water, for example, and the importance of the data that the province gathers, the science that they do that helps inform us once we have a listed species.
I would even go further to say that when we think about data, it is across the department, the government, but also with our partners. It is certainly something we’re looking at, particularly with provinces. The recommendation coming from the CESD has given us additional tools to be able to move forward and think about how we can enhance collaboration with the provinces and territories. Mr. Nadeau may have more specifics to add as well.
Mr. Nadeau: I did mention in my earlier intervention the general status program. This is a federal-provincial-territorial program where we get together to try to generate a portrait of wildlife conservation status in this country at a very high level, at the biological species level. That is one effort where we are combining forces and information.
There is also the state-of-the-environment reports prepared by Environment and Climate Change Canada and DFO for the state of the marine and aquatic environment. Certainly in the marine environment, we are the major generator of information and we work with other departments, ECCC, for example, on some information that they also collect on the marine environment. But we are the principal depository of information on the marine environment.
On the freshwater environment, there are collaborations that are actually specific in some areas. There are heritage or conservation data centres that actually integrate information that they have taken from different levels of government to try to get a picture of both the species and also the ecosystems of interest. It is a challenge because we’re talking about a lot of different entities having different standards and different objectives, different methods, if you will. I agree with you. It’s actually something that is key to be able to combine that information to actually track the changes and the environment as well the status of some of our key ecosystems that might be at risk.
This is certainly an endeavour that we have. We have a policy of transparency and sharing our data as soon as we can, often after it has been analyzed and peer reviewed. I agree with you, it’s a key step that probably Canadians actually would like us to work collectively.
Senator R. Patterson: I hear all of this. Would you say that as part of sustainable funding in your sustainable development strategy that you need to have the capacity to build data integration, whatever that means to you, in order to make reasonable decisions for Canadians on protecting the environment, protecting fisheries, protecting species at risk?
Mr. Nadeau: It would certainly help in some areas if we could actually have that integration or maybe accelerate that integration and move forward with making our data publicly available, not just accessing public data, but others accessing our data.
The Chair: I want to thank our witnesses this morning for your very informative discussion. It was certainly a fruitful session based on the report.
Before I adjourn, I want to advise the committee that in short order we’ll be arranging an in camera session to discuss the Owner Operator consultations that we had because our first panel of this meeting was the last panel we will be hearing on that topic.
The clerk will organize a panel in camera discussion to deal with that. With that, I wish you all a great day. Thank you very much.
(The committee adjourned.)