Fisheries Committee on May 24th, 2018

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Thank you for bringing us back to managing fisheries, which is what's in the “Purpose” section of the act. This proposed subsection 6.1(2) seems to circumvent the purpose of the act, which is—if I can have a second to get back to it—to provide a framework for the conservation and protection of fish and fish habitat, including prevention and pollution, and in rough terms, what the purpose of the act is. Proposed subsection 6.1(2) seems to circumvent that purpose.

[Nicholas Winfield]

I would just say that it's very much intended to achieve the goal of conservation of fisheries.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

I would disagree.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bernadette Jordan]

Mr. Miller.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Waddell, I want to continue on Mr. Arnold's second-last point.

You talked at one point about a fishery or a population that was deemed in danger, so it moved from the good zone into cautionary. So let's say, hypothetically, that the minister deemed the appropriate thing to do would be to cut the fishery by 50%, quotas in that area, etc. Do you understand where I'm going? Does it include all pressures? Is the minister mandated to include the aboriginal portion of it? Are all pressures on it? Yes or no?

[Mark Waddell]

The FSC provisions would be constitutionally protected to be a priority, but they would probably be reduced in such a circumstance.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Probably.

[Mark Waddell]

It would depend on the depth of the cut.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

This would apply to everything, to all pressures on it?

[Mark Waddell]

Yes.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Commercial, sports fishery...?

[Mark Waddell]

You'd start by backing out the commercial, then you back out the recreational, and then you back out the FSC.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Okay.

Gentlemen, the reason that I'm pressuring on this is there's a reluctance and a hesitancy for anyone to challenge the detrimental effects that natives and cultural pressure have on fisheries and hunting. If we don't get strong enough wording in this, it will continue to be ignored because, frankly, nobody wants to tackle it. I'll give you an example. In Ontario right now, our moose hunt will probably end in five to 10 years, maybe sooner, and I'll tell you what the main reason is. It's because—while I have no problem with a native hunting and that kind of thing—they don't follow the same rules as us. They're going right into the wintering grounds and they're shooting when the cows are full of calves. It's indiscriminate. Right now the Manitoba government has made a move on spotlighting—in our part of the world, it's known as jacklighting. They go in with lights and they're shooting the moose. So they're going to put a stop to it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bernadette Jordan]

Mr. Miller, that's outside the scope of the—

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

No, it isn't. I'm using—

[The Chair, Liberal, Bernadette Jordan]

You're talking about moose hunting, and we're trying to deal with these regulations.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

I'm using that as an example, because governments have failed or don't want to step into it. I can tell by Mr. Hardie's last question that he's uncomfortable with this as well. It isn't mandated strongly enough in here that the minister look at all pressures. That's all I'm pointing out. I'm using moose hunting as an example, because that's what happens when you ignore a problem.

I'll leave it at that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bernadette Jordan]

Thank you, Mr. Miller.

Mr. Hardie, you're good?

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bernadette Jordan]

We'll go back to Mr. Arnold.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

To the officials again, I'm just trying to get clarification here so we know for sure what we're talking about. What is the difference between the class of fish described in this amendment, which is “prescribed major fish stocks”, and “fish that are part of a commercial, recreational or Aboriginal fishery” or “fish that support such a fishery”?

What is the difference between prescribed major fish stocks and the other existing description?

[Mark Waddell]

Major fish stocks are those that have a significant commercial value, normally around or in excess of $1 million. They have significant socio-economic and cultural implications, or they're a large landed-quantity tonnage.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Is there a difference between the description you've just given and fish that are part of a recreational or aboriginal fishery, or fish that support such a fishery?

[Mark Waddell]

The fish that support such a fishery is the distinction.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

So fish that support such a fishery may not be covered under this amendment?