Evidence of meeting #103 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
9:15 a.m.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
On proposed subsection 6.2(2), some people could read this and say that we have a fish stock that is in distress and we want to do something about it, but the socio-economic and cultural issues may intercept whatever plan we have, and we may in fact allow for the further degradation of a fish stock, in order to offset the cultural or socio-economic impacts of any kind of a closure or restriction.
Is that the interpretation you would give to this, or can it be interpreted another way?
9:15 a.m.
Director General, Fisheries and Licence Policy, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Even when the exception would be invoked, there would still be a minimum requirement to minimize further decline of the stocks. You have a safety net in essence in place.
As written, the amendment requires the minister to publish his decision. That's an increase in the transparency.
9:20 a.m.
NDP
Fin Donnelly NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC
I wanted to go to 6.2(1). The last line talks about “and implement it within the period provided for in the plan”.
Could you explain a little bit what that means?
9:20 a.m.
Director General, Fisheries and Licence Policy, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Each stock would have its own rebuilding requirements, in terms of timelines. The rebuilding plan itself would define that period. You can surmise that for a certain species that timeline would be different, given the generation times, the recruitment to the stock, the ocean conditions it is facing, the predation, fishing pressures, and the like. That plan will define the timeline to rebuild that stock.
9:20 a.m.
NDP
Fin Donnelly NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC
For instance, one stock could take three years, one five years, one 10 years, that sort of thing?
9:20 a.m.
Director General, Fisheries and Licence Policy, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Yes, on average. We would turn to the international guidance on that. The norm is 1.5 to two generations, for the species.
9:20 a.m.
NDP
Fin Donnelly NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC
Could the officials explain what “major” means in 6.3? The suggested change is the “major fish stock” referred to.
What is a “major fish stock”?
9:20 a.m.
Director General, Fisheries and Licence Policy, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Major fish stocks are the stocks that are identified through either cultural importance, socio-economic value of the landed catch, or quantity of landed....
There are about 170 of them currently. That has been trending upwards over time as additional species are sought out commercially.
It is defined through policy.
9:20 a.m.
NDP
Fin Donnelly NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC
Are there other fish stocks that would not be captured by this amendment, this motion?
9:20 a.m.
Director General, Fisheries and Licence Policy, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
There are other fish stocks that would not be captured.
9:20 a.m.
NDP
9:20 a.m.
Director General, Fisheries and Licence Policy, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
There are 450-ish species in Canada, of which not all are within federal domain. A large portion of those would be provincial jurisdiction.
I can't begin to put a calculus on the differential between the total and the major.
9:20 a.m.
NDP
Fin Donnelly NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC
Thank you.
I have a last question, again going back to Mr. Hardie. I appreciate him asking for further refinement on what I was trying to ask. I don't know if this would be a reasonable amendment, when we deal with this subamendment, and get to it.
A proposition might be something like, “within a reasonable time” be added to subsection 6.1(3). I know I can't propose it until we deal with the other subamendment, but since I have the floor it's:
If the Minister sets a limit reference point in accordance with subsection (2), he or she shall publish the decision to do so,
and then “within a reasonable time”, and “with reasons”, etc.
I know I can't propose that now.
9:20 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bernadette Jordan
I'd like to clarify that we are not dealing with the subamendment, because when the amendment was moved, it had the change in it. It's all one amendment that we are dealing with right now. There is no subamendment. What was moved had the extra line in it, so it's not a subamendment.
9:20 a.m.
NDP
Fin Donnelly NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC
Okay, I would like to throw out that consideration, unless Mr. Rogers would be open to considering that idea. If he is, he could speak to it. If not, I'm happy to make that motion.
9:20 a.m.
Liberal
Churence Rogers Liberal Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL
Madam Chair, I'm not so sure that would accomplish anything really. The bottom line is that when you're talking about the sustainability of fish stocks or rebuilding the fish stocks, there are a lot of important decisions to be made.
Obviously we don't want to see the catastrophe of 1992 repeated with the northern cod stock in Newfoundland and Labrador. The whole intent of this amendment is to put into place something that requires the department and the minister to make good sound judgments and decisions around fish stocks, based on the science and what we save year over year.
As an example, in 2018, we had some decline in the northern cod stock that we didn't expect in Newfoundland and Labrador, so we expect that the minister will try to bring in some measures that allow that stock to continue to build, even though the biomass is much bigger than it was 20 years ago. It is much larger. Nevertheless, that is the whole intent of this amendment.
I don't see the reasoning behind putting in any kind of time limit here, or trying to suggest that we have a certified timeline for this kind of amendment. I don't support that, Madam Chair.
9:25 a.m.
NDP
Fin Donnelly NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC
Madam Chair, if I could further clarify, this is about publishing the information. With all due respect, it's not about setting even the reference point; it's just about publishing.
Perhaps I could hear from the officials if adding a reasonable time of publishing—which captures what I think you were suggesting to the committee—makes sense. I think what was suggested was that the department is going to say that “a reasonable time” will be defined within regulations.
9:25 a.m.
Liberal
Churence Rogers Liberal Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL
Madam Chair, could we suspend for a couple of minutes?
9:28 a.m.
Liberal
Churence Rogers Liberal Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL
Madam Chair, after conferring with my colleagues here, we're prepared to accept Mr. Donnelly's proposal that suggests that we would put in the “reasonable” time frame.
We are good with that.
9:28 a.m.
Liberal
9:28 a.m.
NDP
Fin Donnelly NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC
I would move that we add, in proposed subsection 6.1(3), after the comma, after “so” and before the word “with”, “within a reasonable time”.
The amendment would read:
(3) If the Minister sets a limit reference point in accordance with subsection (2), he or she shall publish the decision to do so, within a reasonable time and with reasons, on the Internet site of Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
