Thank you, Mr. Chair.
On where this motion came from, the minister has been out consulting about the government's plan to modernize the fishery. There is a huge concern on the east coast about the way in which this consultation process has unfolded. There was a huge concern about the invitation-only, behind-closed-doors consultation. Many of the fishermen, independent and otherwise, felt left out. They felt they hadn't been included in the consultation process, even though it was extended a couple of weeks or a few more days.
I asked the minister in committee to please share the list, if he felt there had been adequate consultation with fishermen. I asked the fishermen when I went to the east coast just recently—I was in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland—if they felt they had been adequately consulted. The overwhelming response was that they absolutely had not been. They don't feel they were included in the consultation process, and more importantly, they feel that if the minister had listened to what they had to say, there's no way he would go down this path of eliminating this policy.
They're very concerned about losing this fleet separation and owner-operator policy and essentially moving to what we have on the west coast, which is intensified corporate concentration through moving to an ITQ system, as Ryan mentioned, or moving from a crown public resource to a more owned resource in the form of allocation and ITQs. They're moving to individual transferable quotas, a system whereby those with the deepest pockets are able to control the outcome of the allocation of the resource. Certainly on the west coast that has resulted in fewer jobs and fewer livelihoods being part of the fishery. That is the fear I was hearing on the east coast.
In order for those communities on the east coast to not feel that this is the direction the government is going—to feel that they are not going to be left out and that they are going to be included and consulted if there are significant changes—we have to demonstrate that support, at least through the fisheries and oceans committee demonstrating its support for this policy. We should recommend to the government that it maintain this policy.
The word “reaffirm” is in there because it has been a long-standing policy. Barring further studies or research, the assumption is that the committee has never had a problem eliminating the policy because they haven't addressed it, dealt with it, or wanted to change it. The assumption is that they have felt this policy has been fine.
I feel as strongly as my colleague who spoke earlier that this is a policy that must be maintained. We're talking about a way of life. We're talking about livelihood, jobs, and employment. I have talked to people specifically on the east coast, although there has been a large amount of input from not just Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, but also New Brunswick, Quebec, and P.E.I. Even British Columbia has come in to say that in their experience, if we modernize by eliminating or losing this policy and allow further concentration of corporate involvement in the fishery, it will have a very negative impact.
That's the nature of why I hope we'll see this committee support this motion.
Thank you.