Fisheries Committee on April 21st, 2021

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

For the benefit of all members, I'd like to clarify one point. Mr. Bragdon wanted to make an amendment. Is the motion that Mr. Morrissey has put forward, as it stands, going to prevent him from discussing what he is adding in this amendment?

We have heard the views of Mr. Johns and Mr. Williamson, but I would like to hear what Mr. Bragdon has to say about it. I would like to know what his amendment contributes and what space for discussion it would open up if adopted.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

I will just remind people as well that all comments—whether they're against or opposing what somebody else has said—should be addressed through the chair and not to another member of the committee.

I see no more intervention on this, so, Tina, can we go to a vote on the amendment by Mr. Bragdon, please?

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

I asked a question, Mr. Chair.

Could Mr. Bragdon answer it? I can repeat it if necessary, but I would like an answer before I take a position.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Okay. Do you want to repeat that for Mr. Bragdon, Madame Gill, on his amendment?

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Of course, Mr. Chair.

As I was saying, Mr. Morrissey introduced a motion, which Mr. Bragdon wishes to amend. I would like to know how his amendment is going to open up space for discussion in the study. In other words, if the motion is not amended as he wishes, will that prevent him from discussing the points he wants to make in the study?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Madame Gill.

Mr. Bragdon.

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

Thank you, Mrs. Gill, for your question.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Look, in regard to this, I feel that the amendment is being proposed because it brings clarity to the issue at hand. It reflects the concerns pertaining to this that have been coming from the fishing associations throughout our region and across the country. We feel as though it has added layers to make clear the parameters around the discussion and what is at hand. We feel as though it adds further clarification and identifies the concerns that were raised directly by the associations.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Bragdon.

(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4)

We now go back to the main motion.

Mr. Bragdon, is your hand up?

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

Yes, Mr. Chair. I have another amendment to propose.

After the line “receive witness testimony from officials from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans”, we would add, “the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard and industry representatives,” and then add “to answer questions, including those raised by harvester organizations in their correspondence to committee members”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Okay. Everybody has heard the content of the amendment. Is there any discussion?

(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We'll go back to Mr. Morrissey's amendment on adding the wording about two two-hour meetings. I don't see any hands up, so I presume there's no discussion.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 9; nays 0)

The amendment proposed by Mr. Morrissey is added to the original motion.

Is there any discussion on the main motion as amended? Seeing no interventions, Tina, could you do a vote on the main motion as amended, please?

(Motion as amended agreed to: yeas 10; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The motion as amended is passed.

Mr. Calkins has a point of order.

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

Chair, I am loath to bring it up, but given what's transpired at this committee today, while this committee has had generally cordial, if not friendly relations most of the time, I'll refer you to Standing Order 18, which deals with disrespectful or offensive language and so on. It states:

No member shall speak disrespectfully of the Sovereign, nor any of the royal family, nor of the Governor General or the person administering the Government...[any] offensive words against...[the] House, or against any member thereof.

It continues:

No member may reflect upon any vote of the House, except for the purpose of moving that such vote be rescinded.

At page 97 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, there is a reference to the rulings of Speaker Milliken in the past in regard to Standing Order 18:

Moreover, personal attacks, insults, obscene language or words that question a Member's integrity, honesty or character are not permitted. It is unparliamentary to state that a Member has deliberately misled the House. As Speaker Milliken observed in 2002: “If we do not preserve the tradition of accepting the word of a fellow member, which is a fundamental principle of our parliamentary system, then freedom of speech, both inside and outside the House, is imperilled”.... However, if a Member who feels that his or her reputation has been maligned by the comments of another Member raises a question of privilege, the Speaker must determine if such remarks “constitute such a grave attack as to impede the hon. Member...in the performance of his duties”.

I'm saying this in the defence of my colleague, Mr. Williamson, whose character and motives, I believe, were impugned by my friend—my adversarial friend, but my friend—Mr. Johns. I don't have the authority from Mr. Williamson to pursue this on his behalf, but I would respectfully ask Mr. Johns to withdraw his remarks insofar as they impugned the reputation of Mr. Williamson.

We are free to agree and disagree respectfully at this committee. I don't like lecturing people and I'm not trying to do that, but I think if we don't nip this kind of behaviour in the bud at this committee, we're not going to do the justice that the fishers of this country deserve.

I would ask Mr. Johns to respectfully withdraw those comments. I'd hate to see this get carried on any further.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

I think Mr. Johns wants to respond. I will allow that.

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

I appreciate the comments from Mr. Calkins.

Mr. Chair, at the times when I was interrupted and insulted by two members of this committee in the past, I should have raised them to the chair. I should not have carried those concerns forward and let the committee continue without addressing them at the time. I take that on myself for not dealing with it at the time.

This was not about attacking Mr. Williamson, who I actually have great respect for, who has always treated me with great respect and who I really appreciate. This was about defending myself when he cited my concerns and that he felt that he was being attacked when, in fact, I was bringing forward some concerns from the past.

I have great respect for my colleague, Mr. Williamson. I appreciate Mr. Calkins raising this concern. I apologize if there was any offence taken by Mr. Williamson because, again, I have deep respect for him and he has always carried himself very much with respect toward me.

When I talked about his party on this committee, that would be a different situation. I'm happy to highlight the two incidents that took place because they're on record and they're on video. They could be easily brought up so that we could have a broader conversation. I would be happy to address those as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

I appreciate your quick response, Mr. Johns.

I don't see anyone else.

Mr. Williamson.

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

I want to thank Mr. Johns for that. I appreciate it.

Thank you, Gord.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

I think we have put that to bed for now. I would like to thank Mr. Calkins for raising it in the manner in which he did.

I will remind people that any time they feel they're being disrespected in any way by another member, identify it at the time and, as chair, I will deal with it appropriately at that time.

I will agree with everything everybody has said to a certain degree, that this committee has gotten along quite well in the past, regardless of which party stripe members have been. I say that even as chair and with former chairs who have chaired this committee. There has always been a certain amount of congeniality toward one another. We might have our little jabs every now and then as committee members, but it's never escalated to anything beyond that. The jab sometimes is a bit of humour more so than something serious toward another member. I would ask people to keep that in mind in the future.

We'll move on from that. I know that one is done.

Mr. Johns, you had your hand raised second in regard to new business or committee business. When you're ready, please go ahead.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I hope we can proceed in a better way, all of us. I hope we can learn from this. Certainly, I have, a lot.

Mr. Chair, several weeks ago, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans said it would be reinterpreting the regulations and defining what “readily accessible” means when it comes to frozen-at-sea spot prawns. All our offices in B.C. and perhaps everyone here heard from thousands of concerned constituents about how this would impact regional economies and the prawn industry in B.C. and Canada.

DFO has said it's looking at awareness this year. It didn't resolve the problem, and we want to hear from the department and stakeholders on this, on how it will impact them next year and in the future, so I'm moving:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee undertake a study of at least two meetings to understand the impact of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans re-interpretation of the Fisheries Act regulations affecting frozen-at-sea spot prawns; that the committee call witnesses including senior department officials from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and interested stakeholder groups to testify; and that the committee report its conclusions and recommendations to the House.

I don't believe we need to undertake a long study, and two two-hour meetings would be sufficient to hear from witnesses on this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Johns.

I believe, Mr. Arnold, you've raised your hand to speak to this.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I appreciate Mr. Johns' bringing this to the attention of the committee, as we all know of the issue with the spot prawns. It continues with unexpected announcements, decisions or changes in interpretation that are impacting harvesters right across the country.

We see it as an ongoing problem with the minister's and the department's not consulting with the stakeholders or the industry. I think the spot prawn was the first one that really raised it to highlight it to MPs offices. We were all flooded by emails about that.

I don't know whether we can cover this in just two meetings, and I want to bring to the attention of the committee that we have been postponing motions for study that were on the docket long before this, and which have a much broader scope.

It's fine that it be on notice of motion to the committee, but to further postpone our study into the Pacific salmon, the illegal, unreported and unregulated fisheries, and the pinniped issue on both coasts.... I think all of those have a much bigger impact on our overall fisheries in the country.

We keep getting sidelined into other—I don't know whether you call them knee-jerk or reactionary—studies in this committee, rather than focusing on what the committee identified early on in the first session of this Parliament and now in the second session, as we got back under way after the proroguement. We had priorities set out, and I don't think it behooves the committee to continuously change priorities because of what happens to be the issue of the day, because these issues of the day continue to pop up under this current regime.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Arnold.

Go ahead, Jaime.

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

I'm in agreement with the study on the spot prawns, and I believe there's an urgency to it, so I'd like to see it moved up. I was wondering if Mr. Johns could speak to the urgency in this matter, because I believe it's an important one that we need to look at right away.

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

First, I want to thank Mr. Arnold, because he's right. There are these issues that are constantly coming up, and the department are not explaining themselves. They're making knee-jerk decisions that are impacting people's lives. People are out fishing right now, and some are afraid to go fishing. They're afraid that it just takes one officer to enforce the reinterpretation of the rules and shut them down. They're resistant to making further investments in future seasons. It could affect the market. There are lots of things that are coming into play right now, and obviously uncertainty is the big issue right now. They want this addressed right away.

Here we are. It would literally take two meetings to get this fleshed out, and hopefully the department will back down and we can get them to commit to backing down.

This doesn't just affect the prawn industry; it affects all different fishing industries, because if you talk about reinterpreting the rules, and if they can't check frozen-at-sea prawns that take five minutes to thaw out, how are they going to get a fish that's in the front of a hold on a boat and check that and inspect that? This could be over to other species, so I think this is something fairly serious that affects both coasts and multiple fisheries.

I think we should get the government in front of the committee to explain itself on this reinterpretation of the rules, because it's going to end up transcending over to other fisheries as well, and we've got a lot of fishers concerned about it.

Hopefully we can get this cleaned up quickly. That's what we're hoping.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Johns.

Mr. Hardie, you wanted to comment.

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

Yes. I'll be very brief, Mr. Chair.

This decision comes after decades of what they call “tubbing”, which has been the accepted process up to now. It seems to be arbitrary. It seems to have been done with no consultation whatsoever. Mr. Johns is right that this isn't the only incident. There's another one to do with clams, I think, or it's something that I heard; emails are flying by all the time on some of these issues.

We really do have to look at this through the lens of fair process as well as the specifics of this particular issue.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Hardie.

Mr. Bragdon, you had your hand up for discussion.