Evidence of meeting #43 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was questions.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Lawrence MacAulay Liberal Cardigan, PE
I still would like the information if you could find it.
I'm very interested in areas of the world where this fish is fished in different manners than we fish it here. The only reason I want to know....You have to know the information, and then deal with it then.
But I thank you very much.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rodney Weston
If you could make that information available through the clerk, that would be appreciated.
Liberal
Conservative
Ryan Leef Conservative Yukon, YT
Mr. Chair, much of this has been pie in the sky.
I'm wondering if we've started to get to the point where we're now engaging in a continuation of the study for our own personal interest outside the material or germane issues to this piece of legislation that we're trying to cover.
I do know the questions we asked, and clearly, I am trying to be respectful and not engaging in a point of order on this very piece.
I think the officials who are here are trying to advise us on the implications of any amendment or the specific aspects of this clause by clause. I don't know if we're starting to move toward asking these questions because we're interested in things other than those that actually have a material impact on the bill.
I was going to talk for another seven or eight minutes, but I won't. I'll just quickly turn it over to Mr. Weston to introduce the group he has, if I'm allowed to divert my time quickly.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rodney Weston
We already did that beforehand. Mr. Weston, I apologize, but we did give you the chance at the beginning to explain to members.
Obviously, it would take unanimous consent to go down that road.
Mr. Cleary.
NDP
Ryan Cleary NDP St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL
Just so I understand the timeline correctly, when I asked a question about the amount of the unreported and unregulated illegally caught fish inside the 200-mile limit or outside Canada's 200-mile limit on the east coast, when exactly can the committee expect the answer? Will that be presented to the committee? Do I have to do that as an official request?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rodney Weston
I would ask on your behalf, Mr. Cleary, for the committee to be provided with the information that you're seeking here from officials. I think you're aware from the earlier comments that the information has already begun to be compiled.
So, again, back to point, there's no definitive timeline. I guess it would be, I don't want to say at the mercy of the officials, but a matter of when they're able to compile that information and provide it to the clerk, so that it will be distributed to committee members at that point in time.
NDP
Ryan Cleary NDP St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL
So, I don't need to officially ask. It's being done now.
Liberal
Lawrence MacAulay Liberal Cardigan, PE
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Leef is a friend of mine, but I don't appreciate what was said. Am I out of line by wanting to understand exactly what takes place with the migratory tuna? Am I out of line with trying to find out if we feel in the country that there's some activity taking place in the bluefin tuna fishery that we feel is not appropriate?
That's the only thing I want to find out, and I thank the witness very much for it. But there's no personal interest in it for me, except that I am here to represent the people who sent me here, and the bluefin tuna happens to be a very important part of the fishery in Prince Edward Island.
I don't think I'll beg for forgiveness. I think it's very much my right to do it and I will continue to do so.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rodney Weston
Mr. MacAulay, the request has been made and it will be forwarded when it's compiled.
Monsieur Lapointe.
NDP
François Lapointe NDP Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
We have no option but to react to Mr. Leef's comments. They show an astonishing degree of bad faith. Two members of opposition parties want to be informed about matters that are of fundamental importance for the people they represent, that is whether the overfishing that is going on outside 200 nautical miles directly affects what Canadians want to be able to fish.
Are species that can be fished in Canada also fished in inappropriate or illegal ways in the rest of the world? Is there an effect on the return of those species to Canadian territorial waters, the very resource that Canadians fish? I do not see how that can be made into a desire on the part of the opposition to focus on personal objectives. There is nothing less personal in expressing concern for stocks that will allow our people involved in the fishery to be working in five, 10 or 15 years. I found that comment absolutely out of line.
Conservative
NDP
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I must echo what others have said about Mr. Leef’s comments.
As you know, I have been a member of Parliament for a number of years. You yourself know, Mr. Chair, just how important issues like fishing are for us in the Atlantic region. We make our living from that resource. I have never heard Mr. MacAulay ask a question because he owns a plant that is losing money at the moment. It was not a personal question; he asked a question on behalf of the people in his riding who elected him.
When a bill is introduced and amendments are made, it is important for Canadians. In our democracy, we have a responsibility to ask questions. That is why we have committees and Parliament. So, I think that accusing someone by saying that the questions are personal is anti-democratic, although others may not feel the same way. Parliament’s role is not to allow a single political party to ask questions, take action or even introduce bills. Canada’s democracy gives us the right to ask these questions.
We have the right, Mr. Chair, to raise those questions. Every time someone comes in and attacks a question by another member, saying it's personal, it stops the action of democracy. We are here to debate those questions, debate those bills. The officials, when they are here, have a job to do, to clear up those questions that we have, to make sure that Canadians who have those same concerns have the answers too. I mean, we had to live, down home in the Atlantic area, the loss of codfish.
She used the example of tuna. I remember in Acadie—Bathurst that we had that fishery at one point in time. Those were probably some of the biggest fish we had. They're not really fish, tuna; they're like the other ones there, mammifères. But we had good fishing down home. I mean, when you're looking at tuna of over 1,200 pounds, that's big. And we lost all of that.
In terms of raising questions here, it's important to take the time. If we don't have time to debate, maybe we should just go home. But we still have democracy in our country, and we still have the right to debate bills and to be able to present them. At the end of the day, the government has the majority and they will make their decision, but Canadians have the right to be able to debate bills.
So on this, I have no choice: Mr. Leef's comments, to me, were not proper. To attack a member and say that it's personal.... It's not personal. It's our job.
I know that maybe the Conservative Party wants to take away our democracy, but they haven't succeeded yet. We're going to argue when it comes time to argue, and raise the right questions when it's time to raise those right questions. We will not take it, and we will not accept it, when people come in and do things as he's done.
I want to state my concern here, because it is important. Every bill we put in is the law in our country after that. We have to discuss it. We have to take everything apart, be able to discuss it together, and come in with a good law. We're here to support our Canadians. We're here to support our fishermen. We are here to support our communities.
A guy like my colleague, who comes from P.E.I., knows about the fishery. Ryan Cleary, a guy who comes from Newfoundland, knows the fishery. Lapointe, coming right from the Saint-Laurent, knows the fishery. Myself, I think I know the fishery too. I've been living it, with good lobster and all that good fish. We want to continue to do that fishing. It's good for our communities.
Thank you.
Conservative
Randy Kamp Conservative Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
With respect, I think Mr. Cleary was just reminding us all to make our comments germane to the matter at hand, which is Bill S-3 and clause-by-clause consideration.
Yes, Bill S-3 is about fisheries. We have to be careful that we don't just raise every fisheries question that we haven't been able to get an answer to just because we see an official here. These officials are here because they're experts on what we're trying to do in Bill S-3, which is to amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, to put our domestic legislation in line, to be able to ratify the port state measures agreement.
Frankly, with regard to Mr. MacAulay's comments, I understood them and took no offence to them. I understand why he's interested in tuna and why he could raise this question. But as much as possible, we need to make sure that our comments are germane to the clause that's under consideration, or, in this case, the amendment to the clause that's being considered.
I just took it as a reminder on that, and I think it was a helpful reminder.
Conservative
Ryan Leef Conservative Yukon, YT
I won't belabour it, Mr. Chair, but I don't disagree with things. Mr. Kamp, I think, summarized my intention quite clearly. Just to speak for myself, it wasn't Mr. Cleary saying that. Of course, by no means are those comments a personal attack on Mr. MacAulay's opinions or questions. It was very much what Mr. Kamp had indicated. In that respect, I think we're able to focus on what we need to do. And you ultimately, Mr. Chair, have the ability to accept any of the comments or invitations by any of our members to do that, and that's the process, and that's democracy working.
NDP
Ryan Cleary NDP St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I do feel frustrated by this process because when we were studying the bill we had officials from the department and I asked these same questions of the officials, and there were no answers. This bill is about illegal fishing, unregulated fishing, unreported fishing. So I asked obvious questions about fish in Canadian waters or just outside Canadian waters on the continental shelf.
My concern is, the point I'm getting at, is that when we're in the study process of this bill we never got any answers, and we're still not getting any answers. We're going through this bill with a fine-tooth comb now, and we're presumably going to get through it today. Well, no, I think once these main points are out, I think we'll be done here.
Again, what it comes back to is the fisheries off the east coast, the fisheries that affect my province. They have not healed in 22 years, and it's because of illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing, mostly outside the 200-mile limit. This bill has an impact on that. When we ask our officials for answers to obvious questions, there are no answers. I think this is ridiculous.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Conservative
NDP
François Lapointe NDP Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
Bill S-3 deals with the issue of illegal fishing within 200 nautical miles precisely because our objective is to ensure the sustainability of the stocks.
Mr. Kamp mentioned that people should not raise all their fishery questions here. That is absolutely not what is going on. Once again, that comment is the complete opposite of what my colleagues are trying to do. What is at issue here is determining whether we have a chance to ensure the sustainability of the stocks. That is why my colleagues are asking questions about illegal fishing outside the 200 nautical miles and about fishing-related policies for species that we can no longer fish because not enough are returning to Canadian waters. The objective is fundamentally the same.
We need to know whether we are doing our utmost in Canada to establish the sustainability of fish stocks for our fishers in order to ensure that our people will have jobs in the future and that the industry will be doing well in five, 10, 15 or 20 years. In no way are we raising a bunch of questions that have nothing to do with Bill S-3.
Once again, I found that the comment was simply gratuitous given the effort my colleagues have made.