Evidence of meeting #61 for Finance in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was transfer.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Thank you.
I thank our officials for being with us here today. We appreciate your responses very much.
Director General, National Security Policy, Department of Public Safety
Thank you.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
We'll move on to division 18, the Fisheries Act. I will ask the officials responsible for it to come forward.
Thank you. I want to welcome you both to the committee.
Could you give us a brief overview with respect to division 18? Then we'll have questions from members.
Nigel Harrison Manager, Legislative and Parliamentary Affairs, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Certainly.
I'd like to thank you for inviting us here today to discuss part 4, division 18. This refers to clause 411.
The proposed legislative amendments introduce a new section to the Fisheries Act, section 10, specifically subsections 10(1) and 10(2). These would authorize the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to allocate fish for financing purposes in the context of a joint project agreement.
There are additional amendments to the Fisheries Act contained in part 3; these also allow for entering into agreements with others. Those are in proposed new section 4.4 of the Fisheries Act.
These new amendments together would provide the department with the ability to use moneys that flow from these agreements containing the aspect of the use of fish for the purposes of defraying incremental and operating costs attributable to activities set out in such agreements.
Conservative
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I apologize, as I don't have the witness's submission.
Could you repeat that last sentence? I don't think I got the gist of it.
I apologize, Mr. Chair.
Manager, Legislative and Parliamentary Affairs, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Oh, I'm sorry.
Manager, Legislative and Parliamentary Affairs, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
I just made the point that we are talking here about an amendment that is contained in part 4, indicating that it should be read into a section that we've introduced in part 3 for responsible resource development, which allows for the minister to enter into agreements with others. The reason it's there is that it is an integral part of that part of the bill, concerning the minister entering into stewardship agreements with others as part of habitat protection.
Conservative
Manager, Legislative and Parliamentary Affairs, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Oh, that part, yes. As part of the agreement we'd use the money in these sorts of agreements for the purposes of defraying incremental or operating costs attributable to activities that would be part of this agreement.
Manager, Legislative and Parliamentary Affairs, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Given the benefits that would derive to industry from various scientific and management activities, an approach of this sort of shared stewardship and a stronger role for industry in activities is appropriate, we feel. For example, additional scientific data generated through these sorts of agreements can assist in setting higher allowable catches and in supporting eco-certification of fisheries, which generate additional economic opportunities for fishers.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Thank you very much for that overview.
Do we have questions from the NDP?
Ms. Nash, please.
NDP
Manager, Legislative and Parliamentary Affairs, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Why is this part of the budget bill?
Manager, Legislative and Parliamentary Affairs, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
I really can't comment. It was not my personal decision.
NDP
Peggy Nash NDP Parkdale—High Park, ON
Perhaps a question for the chair is, would this not be more appropriate to go to the subcommittee, where we at least have some of the fisheries critics who are going to be examining these changes? I just feel as the finance critic that I really can't comment on fish and the appropriateness of these changes. I'm happy to offer opinions, but your expertise is in the fishery, and it might be more appropriate to have the fisheries critics as the proper people examining this.
I just raise this as a question.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
There are a couple of members who want to answer the question. Do you want to have a...?
Conservative
Shelly Glover Conservative Saint Boniface, MB
Thanks, Mr. Chair. I welcome the question by Ms. Nash.
The fact is that many of the sections in the budget implementation act don't require expertise. For example, we just heard from SIRC and CSIS, and the public servants who work in those areas. We heard from police officers before. Those measures aren't going before the public safety committee either.
This measure, in fact, is a result of a change following a court case. As in many other budgets and budget implementation acts previously, quite often the changes that come about as a result of a court decision get put into budget implementation acts.
This particular section also has nothing to do with environmental assessments or anything like that, which is why it's entirely appropriate to have it before this committee as another measure in the budget implementation act. But it certainly doesn't require any kind of assessment, or that kind of thing, requiring experts.
I want to share the rest of my time, if I could, with Ms. McLeod.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Ms. Nash, do you want to continue with your time? Mr. Jean and Monsieur Caron wanted to comment as well, but I can have them—
NDP
Peggy Nash NDP Parkdale—High Park, ON
Do you need the whole five minutes, or do you want to complete my time?