Fisheries Committee on Feb. 27th, 2020

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

Well, as I said off the top, the two that have some time sensitivity would be the Big Bar, because of the spring freshet. We need to see what the status of that is and hopefully arrive at some comfort that the right things are being done at the right time, or not.

The issue of the herring stocks on the east coast is also time sensitive because of the fishing season coming up in May. I believe they would like an examination of that. Herring used as bait is becoming problematic because of the health of those stocks. We could dedicate a couple of meetings to that.

Following that, we should delve right into the Pacific salmon study. The Big Bar review will be a prelude to that.

Following that, Mr. Fast's motion on illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing is what I would suggest.

In there somewhere, at the appropriate time, we'll take a few moments—and that's all it would take—to adopt again the reports from the last Parliament, which Mr. Arnold suggested we bring back.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Mr. Bragdon.

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Seeing as the retabling of the documents from the previous Parliament is something we can handle relatively quickly, could we do that today or do that quite early on and have that taken care of and put back before Parliament?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

It was agreed that they would all be adopted again, so that's done. It's just a matter of now presenting them back to the House, as requested in the motion.

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

We had a motion. We voted on the motion—

[A voice]

The motion was agreed to with a dissenting opinion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Yes, and we even agreed on the dissenting report, if any are going to—

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

As soon as we can get that done, that would be great. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Mr. Johns.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

I think that's great. Obviously the minister will be coming before us, so that will be a lot to fit in.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

On that note, the request has been sent to the minister's office or to her directly.

Mr. Arnold.

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

Because of the scope of the Pacific salmon study that Mr. Hardie put forward, I believe we may be better to start that. It was in the motion, I believe, that it would be the first study we do. Considering the herring stock issue, we may be able to find time to fit in the two or three meetings, if we aren't able to get witnesses on the Pacific salmon study. I believe you said a minimum of three meetings. We could fit that into the schedule in the spring session so we may be able to wrap up those two studies before the end of the spring session.

As for the motion that Mr. Fast put forward on illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, I believe it would be paramount to start that study as early as we can, when we get back in September or October. We would look at some of the issues, not just with the offshore and international fisheries but also some of the inland fisheries that are potentially being impacted, from anecdotal reports we're receiving. I'm not sure whether we need to have travel specifically indicated in the study motions or if the committee is able to consider travel. Even if it's not in the motion, we should include travel in it.

During that study, we may also be able to fit in some of the other issues. If we do decide to travel to the west coast, we could see on the ground some of the issues with the steelhead motion. We could also possibly see some of the pilot projects that are being looked at on the selective gear fishery as well. I would really encourage that the IUU fishing study be paramount to be started early in the fall session.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

You are correct, the salmon study was passed in a motion to be the first one to be started.

Mr. Hardie.

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

I have two quick things.

I think we generally agreed that the time sensitivity of the Big Bar situation leads us into the salmon study, so we can start by talking about Big Bar, get that dealt with, and then segue into the rest of the salmon study.

I understand we would try to find some time in the schedule to deal with the herring as a sidebar issue. Was that your intention, Mel?

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

Not necessarily a sidebar, but if we are having difficulty coordinating witnesses and so on with the salmon study because it's a much larger study.... I recognize that during the last session, there was a point when we were in the process of looking at two different studies plus government legislation all at the same time. It got to be a little confusing and it dragged out some of them. I'd like to avoid that as much as possible.

If we can identify the herring stock study, as it is a time-sensitive issue, we could possibly fit in the three meetings required for that. Then, as we're working on draft reports, often we need time for the analysts to do the redrafts or prepare the draft reports. That second study could fill in some of that time while we're waiting for draft reports to come back.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Before I go to Mr. Fast, I don't want to get too far ahead on what we're doing and when we're doing it.

We're agreeing to start that one first. The clerk is going to need a date really quickly for the time frame for submission of a witness list, because next week is a constituency week, and we're back the week after. If we're starting something, that's when we'd probably like to start it, instead of continuing with committee business every day until we get to something.

Would it be the wish of the committee to invite the departmental officials first? We could get that out of the way. That would probably chew up most of the first meeting, I would think.

We could select a date for submission of other witnesses to be in by a certain date. Does anybody want to suggest a date?

Gord.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

We're just specifically going to focus on this first round of witnesses and dates on Big Bar, correct? Then we'll do the rest of the study and witnesses later. Does that sound reasonable to everyone? It gives us time on that because it's quite a bit more complex. I think we should even have a deeper conversation of what that schedule should be like on that salmon study. We could maybe do that at one of the meetings when we return. We're only going to have so many meetings, and we don't want it, as Mr. Fast said, to turn it into another Cohen commission. We want to make sure we are specifically on the emergency in British Columbia regarding Pacific wild salmon.

I support that, and maybe the clerk has a recommendation of a date because she's the one who has to put it together for really only two weeks away.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

In order to have witnesses for the 10th, if we say it's going to be the department first, fine; we can invite the department for the meeting on the 10th.

Again, we'd like to have the ability to contact other witnesses as well, because if something happens that the people we want to talk to in the department are travelling, or whatever, that will fall apart and we'll have nobody. I'd rather have by maybe Wednesday March 4, if possible, the submission of witnesses to start the study. That would give the clerk time to contact them and see if they're available, if we have to make arrangements to bring them here to Ottawa.

Mr. Calkins.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Mr. Chair, you're in an unenviable position and I know there are a lot of serious things going on here at the table.

From my conversation with some of my colleagues across the way, I do believe that there is an urgent need to at least hear and get an understanding of what the commercial fishery is going to be facing if they don't have adequate bait for their crab traps and their lobster traps. Not knowing for certain how this is going to play out, it seems to me as if there are some relatively quick solutions to this. I would like at least one of those meetings in the week that we come back. I can't speak for everybody else at the table, but I would even be willing, as a matter of urgency, to have a meeting outside of the regularly scheduled hours if we decide to pursue the Big Bar issue, which as a western Canadian I find very disconcerting.

I find those two issues to be the most time-sensitive and pressing issues. I think it's a matter of urgency. I'm not casting any aspersions here, but this committee has not actually heard a witness since June of last year, because of elections and everything that's happened and standing up a minority Parliament. I get those things and I'm not blaming anybody, but that's the reality that's facing this committee. I think we have some very serious work in front of us and we need to address this issue because those fishermen in Atlantic Canada need a reliable source of bait. I want to make damn sure that, if this committee is an obstacle, we remove whatever obstacle that is, so they can get out there and fish.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Mr. Fast.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

In the interests of efficiency, I noticed that many of the witnesses we'll be bringing to these studies will be providing comments on the recreational fishery side. Could we ask staff to try to rationalize how and when these witnesses are called? There's a whole bunch of studies we're proposing to do: selective fishing, the broader Pacific salmon study, etc. When we have representatives from the recreational fishery here speaking to one study, if it's highly likely they will be called again on other studies, it would be very helpful if we had an opportunity to ask questions on those as well.

I know typically that wouldn't be allowed, Mr. Chair, but I'm wondering why we would have witnesses travel here many times, or try to co-ordinate them in video conferencing, when we can do it one time and say, “Hey, we have three studies coming up; you're likely going to be witnesses at all three, so let's ask questions on all three.” I know that might complicate matters somewhat, but it's just for your consideration.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

The only thing I worry about is that I would want to make sure the analysts were okay with that. They're the ones who are putting it together afterwards. To have testimony coming at them from two or three different studies, depending on who the witness may be, they'd have....

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

We would have to be very clear, Mr. Chair, as to what they were speaking to at any given time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Yes, that's what I was saying. They would have to know that this doesn't apply to the question that was just asked, but to the study we're doing next week or some days down the road. I just want to make sure they would be able to follow that.

Madam Gill.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

On the topic of bait, we had proposed an amendment last time. The problem isn't exactly the same, but it exists in Quebec as well, and the fishing season starts a bit earlier there.

If we want to hear from witnesses on the issue of crab, I'm in favour of meeting outside the committee's normal hours and holding a meeting on the issue as soon as possible.