Fisheries Committee on Feb. 25th, 2016

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

Three minutes is not a lot of time, Mr. Chair, so I'll make a few comments and then ask a question.

Many people have spoken to me about topics such as the status of fish habitat protection, Fisheries Act changes, the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation, implications of the Ahousaht decision, labelling and genetically modified fish in Canada, illegal fishing and organized crime in Canadian waters, and monitoring and enforcement. I'm sure you're aware...I'll add that I've just introduced my private member's bill on moving to closed containment. In the last Parliament this standing committee looked at closed containment technologies.

Mr. Stringer, you mentioned that you're excited and slightly terrified on MPAs. We had a pretty good discussion here on that, and you provided some good information. I would add that some of the concerns I've heard about trying to meet the targets are regional concerns, for instance, looking at the Arctic as major possibilities at the expense of the Pacific and Atlantic coasts.

My question is about the issue of SARA and species at risk. We have beluga whales and we have resident killer whales on the Pacific coast. In terms of the killer whales, this has been in the courts as we know, and I've been approached on the question of whether the department has put the necessary funds in the budget to deal with this, and specifically with this endangered species, the Pacific killer whale.

[Kevin Stringer]

Thanks for the question.

I'm going to touch on the MPA thing. You talked about the three coasts, and the Arctic, and all that. There is no question...and the question before was about what areas. I know I said “excited, but terrified”, but “ambitious but achievable”, as the minister says, is a far better way to say it. There will need to be different approaches on the three coasts. A different amount of work has been done. You can do more through fisheries closures in one area. MPA network planning has been done in other areas. Land claims agreements need to be respected, and we need to make sure we're taking the appropriate approach in the north. We're aware of all of that. It is interesting and exciting times.

On species at risk, I can't speak to what's in the budget. What I can point out is in mandate letters, and certainly the mandate letter for the Minister of Environment and Climate Change speaks to ensuring that the species at risk issues are upheld. Our minister is the responsible minister for aquatic invasive species. We've had the opportunity to speak to him about those things, and we've also spoken about critical habitat issues around killer whales, around understanding that, and the recovery plan that exists there.

We're mindful of our responsibilities there, and we will ensure we're carrying out our legislative responsibilities.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Sorry. I would love to give you more time, but I'm sure Mr. Morrissey would be quite upset if I did.

That concludes our testimony. I want to say thank you to our guests for coming in from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Ms. McPherson, Mr. Rosser, Mr. Stringer, on behalf of the committee, thank you for joining us today. We appreciate it.

At this stage we'll take a break of a couple of minutes, and we'll come back and discuss committee business. We have a few items and we have that motion to discuss as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Folks, we have several items here to look at.

As you know we've had two motions passed already, and one pertaining to a study that we've been talking about: the MCTS on the west coast. We have some witnesses that we have to discuss. We also need to have the timing done. In addition to that, we have to talk about the supplementaries. We're now in receipt of both supplementaries and the main estimates. Supplementaries have to be reported by, I think you said, the 21st.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. David Chandonnet]

It would be March 21 at the latest.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

That means we have two days, March 8 and 10.

There are three things for two days, I'm afraid. There would be the supplementary estimates. Then there would be a discussion on committee business and agenda setting, because we just said we'd bring in departmental people from the Coast Guard and DFO, so we need to have a discussion about a meeting. Also, then, we would have the beginning of this Comox study.

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

We also need to have the minister.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Then there's the minister, which we all said was the first motion we passed. Bringing the minister in around that time could also go with the supplementary estimates. That's the other point, isn't it?

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

That motion's passed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Okay.

Can we talk about the Comox study first? There are a couple of points we have to make about the Comox study.

Ms. Jordan, go ahead.

[Bernadette Jordan, Liberal, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Are we going to talk about witnesses for the Comox study now ?

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

I hope to, yes.

[Bernadette Jordan, Liberal, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Because some of the witnesses have not been contacted, and because they may not want their names put forward, can we go in camera for this part?

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Are you making a motion to go in camera?

[Bernadette Jordan, Liberal, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Yes, please.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Then let's have that motion right away, since it's dilatory.

(Motion agreed to)

Seeing a vote of 5-4, we'll now go in camera.

[Proceedings continue in camera]

[Public proceedings resume]

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Mr. McDonald, you have a motion. The motion reads:

That the Standing committee on Fisheries and Oceans commence a study of the Northern Cod Stock and its relevance to associated species. This study would evaluate the replenishment of the stock and what other species are affected by it in the region. The study would also look at sustainable harvesting technologies for the future of the cod fishery.

Mr. McDonald, would you like to speak to it?

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Mr. Chair, I so move.

This study is very important because depending on who you talk to, at least in Newfoundland today, you get different versions of where they think the cod fishery is, where the stock is, and whether there should be a commercial fishery, and even if there should be what we commonly call a recreational food fishery.

I'd like the committee to look at it and come back with some firm evidence as to where the stock is, as well as its affect on other species. We heard this week that the shrimp are down in some areas, up in others. Is the resurgence of the cod having an effect on that species? Is it affecting the snow crab species? Why is the stock high in one place and low in another? Again, with the food fishery involved as well, I'd like to see what effect that has on it.

Overall, it's not just to evaluate the state of the stock. When and if the stock is ready to be harvested commercially, it comes down to a lot of lead time, because the fish plants that were once dependent on the cod fishery don't exist anymore for the most part. For any plants that want to start production of the product from the raw material, it is going to take a while for them to gear up and get ready for it. If we could find some way to show them evidence that if not this year, two years down the road we expect the cod fishery to be a viable commercial fishery....

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Mr. Strahl.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Certainly, we are supportive in general of the study. It says what other species are affected by it. We would want to include as well what other species are affecting it. Perhaps that's implied in a study of this nature.

I don't know. I would seek the guidance of the chair to determine whether we need to indicate that Mr. McDonald would like to host us if we came to the region in the motion, but certainly, we would want to authorize travel. Perhaps that's in the budgeting phase, but we will want to go to speak to the people that have been most directly affected in their communities.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

If it comes to travelling to the affected areas with respect to northern cod, and it's a great idea, we have to develop a budget, and pass that budget. That's really what we would have to do.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Does it have to be part of the motion?

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Here's what I recommend.

We pass the motion as is. If we decide we want to travel as a committee, we can amend it as such or put something in front of the committee to travel in order to do this.

Mr. Donnelly.

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

I'm just seeking clarification. We're in favour of looking at this study as well, but I'd like to clarify a couple of points.

Mr. McDonald mentioned snow crab and others. I'm sure he's aware that we did an extensive study on the snow crab in the previous Parliament. We travelled and presented a major report.

He also mentioned shrimp. Is that something you wanted to include in this study, the impacts on shrimp? Mr. Strahl had mentioned not only the relevance of associated species that are affected but that are affecting.

I'm looking for clarification, because I would ask if that's maybe a friendly amendment to include the words “including shrimp” at the end and its relevance to associated species, or is that implied?

The second clarification is, when was the last northern cod stock study done by this committee, if there has been one? Five years ago?

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

No, I think it was in 2005.