Mr. Arnold.
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.
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.
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
The reference in the amendment and the subamendment refers to fish stocks that are prescribed by regulations. This would appear to me or possibly could be interpreted as fish stocks that are commercial, recreational, or aboriginal fisheries, which in interpretation is going back to the changes that were made to the act in 2012 and 2014 that referred to HADD, or the removal of HADD, and the activities that could cause “serious harm to fish that are part of a commercial, recreational, or Aboriginal fishery, or to fish that support such a fishery”.
In terms of fish stocks that are under regulation, or major fish stocks, depending on the terminology you use, I interpret it to mean, as we did in the 2012 and 2014 changes, commercial, recreation, or aboriginal fisheries. Is it the intent here that the management of fisheries at sustainable levels would only apply to those types of fisheries?
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Yes, I'm asking the officials. Or the member who presented this can explain.
9:15 a.m.
Director General, Fisheries and Licence Policy, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
The wording is intended to ensure that the implications of the amendment are reflective of the federal minister's authority, rather than that of the provincial ministers. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans manages approximately 170 major fish stocks. Those are determined through either landed value, in terms of economic value or quantity, or cultural significance, but they don't stray into provincial jurisdiction.
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
It doesn't apply to all fish stocks? It would only be those that are considered major or are managed through regulations, which would mean only recreational, commercial, or aboriginal fisheries.
9:15 a.m.
Director General, Fisheries and Licence Policy, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
It would be major stocks, yes.
May 24th, 2018 / 9:15 a.m.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
I have two questions.
First of all, to go back to Mr. Donnelly's questions earlier, the proposed amendment, at 6.1(3), states:
If the Minister sets a limit reference point in accordance...he or she shall publish the decision to do so, with reasons, on the Internet site of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
We know what they're going to do and where they're going to put it, but is there a prescribed time period within which it must be published?
9:15 a.m.
Director General, Fisheries and Licence Policy, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Those limit reference points were developed in consultation with our science officials—
9:15 a.m.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
No, no. I'm asking about when the minister will publish his decisions. Is there a time period between decision day and publication day?
9:15 a.m.
Director General, Fisheries and Licence Policy, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
No, not as set out in the current amendment.
9:15 a.m.
Director General, Fisheries and Licence Policy, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
As long as there is sufficient time to develop the limit reference point in terms of doing the science work and the consultation with indigenous, commercial, and other stakeholders and that is not constrained....
9:15 a.m.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
Is this something that can be handled after the fact in regulation?
9:15 a.m.
Director General, Fisheries and Licence Policy, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Yes. I think so.
9:15 a.m.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
It's one thing for the minister to make a well-considered decision, but we can't keep the communities in the dark as to what that is and the reasons for it. There has to be a reasonable expectation that if a decision is made it's going to be published within a reasonable time so people can make the adjustments, etc.
9:15 a.m.
Director General, Fisheries and Licence Policy, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
We can define that in regulation.
9:15 a.m.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
You can, so we don't have to deal with that here, necessarily.
I want to go to proposed subsection 6.2(2). This could be interpreted as saying that we have a fish or a stock that might be in distress—
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
I have a point of order, Chair.
Are we dealing with the subamendment, or the actual amendment?
9:15 a.m.
Liberal
9:15 a.m.
Liberal
Churence Rogers Liberal Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL
Madam Chair, I asked you to include the subamendment with the amendment before I started. I'm assuming we're dealing with the entire amendment.
9:15 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bernadette Jordan
Yes. I believe when it was moved, it was moved with the change in it.
9:15 a.m.
Liberal