Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I was somewhat caught off guard by what our colleague Mr. Weston had to say. I'm not sure if this is what Mr. Weston had in mind, but it sounded as though if we give a specific recommendation to the government it will not be heard, because it's a specific call for action and this government does not respond to what may be perceived as a threat, but if we water this down and suggest that they only review it, then the government might consider it.
I wasn't quite following exactly what Mr. Weston had in mind, but if he wants to clarify it for me, that would be great.
I'd like to say something in response to the comment that we should listen more to ACOA instead of to our own intellect and our own experience and wisdom as parliamentarians, because ACOA, as a government department involved in this, has decades of experience and we only have a limited amount of experience with this. The Minister Of Fisheries and Oceans just made a decision contrary to the advice of her department. The department has 140 years of experience managing fish stocks in Atlantic Canada. The department recommended a reduction in crab quotas in the southern gulf. The minister, however, did not accept that advice, and the minister decided what was right for the industry. She has to take responsibility for that.
So the minister herself, when it comes to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, doesn't follow the advice of her department, which has decades of experience in managing the issues it has the constitutional jurisdiction and competency to review.
My concept and my perceptions of what we, as a committee, do are very different from how other members of the committee view their roles and positions. As a parliamentarian, I feel very comfortable reporting to Parliament, to the House of Commons, that we feel very strongly that the government should embark upon a specific course of action. It's not a threat. It's not an ultimatum. It's a specific recommendation of a course of action brought forward after due process and study by a standing committee of the House, consistent with 146 years of practice of this House. And it violates no standing orders or past precedent of what a standing committee does.
I'm going to read one last thing. It was stated that the amendment didn't include the word “ACOA” so that it wouldn't be provocative. The original motion didn't include the word “ACOA”; it called on the government. My motion did not include the word “ACOA”; it called on the government.
This is what Carey Bonnell, the executive director of the Canadian Centre for Fisheries Innovation, sent to me a little while ago:
I've received several calls from DFO officials wondering when we are planning to get the lobster committee up and running to move forward with the Lobster Development Agency. I reminded these same government officials that we are about to close our doors due to a lack of federal funding, and that calls may have to be addressed elsewhere to initiate the lobster round table process and the lobster development committee.
DFO officials are asking when the Canadian Centre for Fisheries Innovation is going to get moving on the recommendation of the Atlantic lobster round table to get the Atlantic lobster development committee started so that they can get the Atlantic lobster development agency initiative started.
That being said, it sounds to me as though DFO is behind the CCFI. My original motion calls on government to restore the funding.
Let's have the vote.