Fisheries Committee on Nov. 2nd, 2016

[Catherine Blewett]

If you don't mind, I'll follow up on that. It has been picked up on, but for sure we'll make that correction.

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

Thank you.

I'll split my remaining time with Mr. Doherty.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

I'll direct my comments to the minister.

Minister, your government has announced a carbon tax. Has there been an economic impact study on how that carbon tax would impact the fisheries or those people, those friends and families, who depend on the fisheries for their livelihoods?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Doherty, as you know, we made a clear commitment to Canadians in the election that we think there should be a price on pollution. We're working in a constructive—

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Was there an economic impact study on that?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Again, I'd be happy to get precise information and get back to you on that. That would be a question—

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Mr. Doherty, take advantage—

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Chair, I'm putting forward a motion:

That pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans conduct a pre-budget study on the effects that the "price on carbon" announced by the Prime Minister on October 3rd, 2016 would have on the aquaculture sector in Canada; that this study be comprised of no less than four meetings to be held at the Committee's earliest convenience; that departmental officials from Fisheries and Oceans Canada be in attendance for at least one meeting; that the Committee report its findings and recommendations to the House of Commons.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

It's in order. We had the appropriate notice beforehand. You did bring this to the committee. We now have it being distributed to all committee members once again, if you don't already have it.

I'll open up the floor for a discussion on that.

Mr. Arnold.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I fully support the motion. It's going to have huge impact. I've recently made trips out to the Maritimes and spoken with fishermen there. Many of them were totally unaware of the impacts of the carbon tax. To be honest, they went through the roof when they found out what it was going to cost them in extra fuel costs.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Okay.

Is there any more comment on this?

Mr. Doherty.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Chair, I think we should just go to the vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Indeed, we will. Seeing that the debate is exhausted, we will now go to the vote.

(Motion negatived)

We will now proceed.

Mr. Doherty, you have 30 seconds left in your questioning.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

To the minister and to the parliamentary secretary, with all due respect, I do want to offer that we deeply respect what you do and your offices, and you have been very kind in your time, in the short time that I've been on this file. Although we are combative at times or the questioning seems combative, we do have deep respect for both of you.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

I appreciate that, Mr. Doherty. With that sentiment, we're ahead of ourselves. It's not Valentine's Day yet; it was Halloween this week. However, that sentiment is mutual. I've enjoyed our conversations.

What's fun about this portfolio is that there are interactions on all coasts of Canada. I'm learning about the Great Lakes fisheries. I'm learning from colleagues on all sides of the House. It's an exciting thing to discover, and I look forward to working with all of you as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

There we go. I'd love to say we can end on that note, but I suspect we will not. We now have to proceed.

Mr. McDonald, you have five minutes, please.

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the minister and parliamentary secretary and staff for coming here today.

Minister, I wonder if you could help clarify something. There has been a lot of discussion, and even here today, about extending the time allowed to review the changes that may take place under the act, and the consultation process, and whatnot. I do know, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, that you were a parliamentarian here when the last revision came through under section 35. Can you recall or inform the committee here today about how much consultation or how much review time, or what kind of time was available for the previous review of the act, in 2012?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Thank you, Mr. McDonald, for that question.

Your chair was also a member of Parliament, as were a number of other colleagues at the table, when these changes were done in 2012 and 2013. To say that there was a review of the Fisheries Act changes, I think would be a pretty gross exaggeration. These were measures that were largely buried in an omnibus budget bill that was hundreds and hundreds of pages long.

We didn't think that this was the right way and that sentiment was shared by a number of parliamentarians in the House of Commons. I think to be fair, the New Democrats, the Bloc Québécois, Ms. May, the Green Party, became very concerned. I think it was Ms. May, in fact, who had us voting for 38 hours or something on some of these bills to draw the attention of Canadians to this abuse of process around omnibus budget bills suddenly changing fundamental protections of the Fisheries Act that are important, as you will see and as we are seeing, to many Canadians.

That's why we thought to ask your committee, and why we were so happy that you accepted, to undertake this work and then make deliberate amendments to the Fisheries Act in a transparent way, going through the regular parliamentary process. We'll hear from colleagues at every stage of the debate. The ultimate bill that we will table in the House of Commons, we hope and believe would be referred to this committee and you will then decide in your own wisdom how you wish to proceed with that legislation, from whom you wish to hear. We would encourage you to hear from a variety of voices and to try to not leave anybody out who feels strongly about this, on any side of the question.

The best way, we believe, to build legislation that enjoys a high level of public confidence is to do so in a transparent and democratic way. It doesn't mean that we always agree on it. Democracy begins and ends with a vote, but the process in between can be collegial and informative and transparent and open. That's certainly what we're hoping for.

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

I'll take that lengthy answer as being “none”.

Minister, since 2012, municipalities in my riding have expressed concerns that during construction and development in their communities, habitat management has become self-regulated. That responsibility has been downloaded to municipalities. What are your thoughts on that issue?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

You're right. It's not only in your great riding of Avalon that elected municipal leaders, and in some cases provincial leaders, would feel this sense of downloading. I've seen it in my province. Serge and I represent New Brunswick constituencies, and we hear the same thing from municipal leaders.

As I said, perhaps in response to your colleague, Ms. Jordan, the serious layers of reductions at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has meant that often it was—and back to Mr. Finnigan's question—community groups, volunteer groups, NGOs, environmental groups, municipal leaders, who stepped in to try to provide monitoring and perhaps shed some light on practices they thought may have been negative. They tried to get the responsible public authorities to take their responsibility.

In the case of our department, the deputy tells me that we went from 63 offices doing fisheries habitat protection down to 16. Don't be surprised if the people in Avalon found that it was harder to get to one of those offices. Therefore, goodwill citizens and other community leaders have stepped in. That's why if we get this right and build public confidence, and if we are successful in convincing our cabinet colleagues and others for a better allocation of resources to support this work, hopefully people won't have the sense that they're having stuff downloaded to them.

That certainly isn't our intention, but we recognize that we're some distance away from having solved that yet.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you, Mr. McDonald.

Mr. Donnelly, you have three minutes, please.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, the Fisheries Act gives you the authority to manage the fishery, not only for conservation and the sustainability of fish but also in the pursuit of social and economic objectives.

The Canadian Independent Fish Harvester's Federation has a concern. In the absence of a clear statement in the legislation, they feel it creates some ambiguity regarding the authority of the minister and whether the act implements the full scope of the government's jurisdiction and power in that regard.

I'm wondering, in the short time that I have, if you could comment about the specifics of putting that in the legislation.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

I have heard from some of these same representatives of independent harvesters that I'm sure you have. They've shared that concern with me. I think, from your question, that you probably have a similar view to mine, that the economic and social and cultural livelihoods of many communities up and down all the coasts depend on the successful management of these resources.

These are the men and women who are on the front line of any mismanagement decisions or any lack of rigorous scientific advice or whatever process leads to an unfortunate decision. They're often the first people to face the consequences. Many of them are in a situation economically where they don't have a whole series of other alternatives to support their families or to grow their communities.

I share that view, and I would, again, welcome the advice of the committee on how you think we can square that circle. For a bunch of reasons, I am attached to things like the owner-operator principle and fleet separation. These are ideas that I hear about from the fishers and harvesters in my own riding and from colleagues of mine at the table here and elsewhere, but I'll be governed by the committee's view on these issues. If you have specific suggestions of how we can better reflect some of these values in the act, I would welcome them.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

I have a short question with the remaining time. Since the Fisheries Act changes of 2012, have there been any private prosecutions that you're aware of? Has it been tested in court at all?