Fisheries Committee on April 28th, 2021

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

I call this meeting to order. Welcome to meeting number 27 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of Monday, January 25, 2021. Therefore, members can attend in person in the room or remotely, using the Zoom application.

The committee is considering committee business and future business. With respect to the routine motion adopted by the committee, the meeting is in public. The proceedings will be made available via the House of Commons website. Just so you are aware, the webcast will always show the person speaking rather than the entirety of the committee.

Mr. Battiste, you have your hand raised.

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

Yes, Mr. Chair.

At the end of the last meeting, I had put a motion on the floor and we ran out of time. The motion was to move forward on the prawn study and then to extend the Pacific salmon study, as well as get to Mr. Morrissey's motion on owner-operator and inshore sales.

I'm willing to move that forward as the next three studies, if there is support.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Are you moving that in the form of a motion?

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

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Okay.

For discussion, we'll go to Madam Gill.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

I believe Mr. Bragdon raised his hand before I did, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Okay.

Mr. Bragdon, you've been shoved up the line.

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

I'm fine either way. Madam Gill would be welcome to go, if she wants.

With regard to what Mr. Battiste has brought forward, I have just a couple of questions about trying to complete one study and then moving into the next, followed by the next. I'm wondering if it's possible to seek clarity around this as it pertains to the current study we're on, which is the Pacific salmon study, the west coast salmon study. I believe Mr. Hardie brought in a motion about extending it.

After reflecting on it and thinking about it, I'm wondering if we could finish up the west coast Pacific salmon study first, if at all possible, and then move directly to either the prawn harvester issue or Mr. Morrissey's motion as it relates to the owner-operator study, just to give us finality. I know that this west coast study is very important, but it's been going for quite some time. It would be nice to move that toward a conclusion. Perhaps we'd be able to do that in even less than three future sessions.

I want to put that on the floor to consider before we start to interrupt this study with another study and then go to another one. Perhaps we could try to wrap up one before we go on to the others. That's just a suggestion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Bragdon.

Tina, before I go to Mr. Hardie or back to Madam Gill, some staff are telling me that they are trying to get into the meeting and haven't been let in. Could that please be done? Thank you.

Madam Gill.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would also like to speak to the motion.

I agree with Mr. Bragdon that the Pacific salmon study must come to an end. We have been at it for a really long time. At the last meeting we also talked about the budget, how the money should be spent. We wanted to increase the number of meetings to deal with that. In my opinion, it can be done in two stages, conclude the study and write a report, before moving on to other work.

I understand that the schedule is tight and that there are several important studies to do. Right now, our studies are focused on the Atlantic and Pacific, and I absolutely understand that. However, as the lone Quebec representative, I have put forward motions to propose other subjects for study, including a short study on recreational fishing from the perspective of the recovery and of land use. We are hearing a lot about this in our region. I would have liked this study I am proposing to be part of the package. I believe we have room in the schedule to do it by the end of June.

If I'm not mistaken, we even spoke of continuing our studies over the summer. I heard that at one point. I don't know if it's still in the plans, like last year.

In short, I would like the committee to consider my proposal. We could slip this short study in between the various others. This would allow the Quebec issue to be included in our work. It could also be beneficial to other regions. In fact, I believe we had expanded the scope of my motion to the Atlantic.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Madam Gill.

We'll now go to Mr. Hardie.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate the interest from the group about getting that Pacific salmon study done. It's been off and on now for literally months, as we've dealt with clearly important things. We added meetings simply because the advent of the 2021 budget announced $647 million to be invested in dealing with the situation on the west coast.

In terms of the timing, we have time to get those additional meetings in, but I would want to defer to the clerk or whoever to see how quickly we can get the witnesses in place to basically go forward with those additional salmon study meetings, or whether or not we could, in fact, work in two meetings on the prawn issue if those witnesses aren't available to us for next week.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Hardie.

Mr. Arnold.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate everybody's enthusiasm in this committee for covering so many topics, but we're talking about squeezing in more studies and more meetings. We haven't even covered off the studies that were approved by the entire group months ago. There's the IUU study on illegal and unreported non-regulated fisheries, the pinniped or seal management study put forward by Mr. Morrissey, and Madam Gill's motion to study the potential of recreational fisheries in Quebec. Are we discarding all of those other motions?

We really only have a few meetings left, possibly 13, and possibly even fewer than that, depending on when the House rises. I really think we need to be considerate here.

The Pacific salmon study, as others have mentioned, has been going on for months. I believe it's extremely important that we've heard so much testimony on that. That's been such a long study. It's going to take us, I think, a reasonable amount of time to look at the report for what should be in there for recommendations and then go through the review of the draft report. To try to fit anything else in now, there really isn't time, so I would prefer that we focus on the Pacific salmon study as a priority overall right now.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Arnold.

All I will say today on the discussion that has taken place up to this point is that we wanted today set aside to actually discuss future business. That's where we're to. If somebody makes a motion to do such-and-such, we have to deal with it, as we're doing here now. I'm not suggesting in any way which study should be done next or which one should be completed, but it was the committee members who asked to have committee business so that we could discuss what we have left in the time frame and what we can do in that time frame. That's exactly what I expect to be done today.

Is there any other discussion on Mr. Battiste's motion?

Mr. Arnold, you have your hand up.

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

I would like to offer an amendment to Mr. Battiste's motion to, in some way, identify the Pacific salmon study as the first priority to get done. If we can get through the witness testimony on this, then we could have time to draft a report and study that report. That would be my recommendation: an amendment to the motion to prioritize the Pacific salmon study.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

We've heard the proposed amendment. Is there any discussion?

Mr. Johns.

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

Just for clarity's sake, it's to finish the salmon study and then do the prawns. Is that the amendment, Mr. Arnold?

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

I didn't identify what was next. I just identified the salmon study as a priority.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

It was presented as an amendment, Mr. Johns, to Mr. Battiste's motion of doing the prawns study next. This is an amendment to finish up the salmon part of the study, to get that done first, before....

We can vote on the amendment when the discussion ends, and then we'll vote on the motion as amended, if the amendment goes through.

Mr. Morrissey.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Mr. Chair, I believe that, in the motion, Mr. Battiste prioritized the three studies for reports. The salmon one would be the priority. However, it's my understanding that there was probably an issue with scheduling additional witnesses. That may leave a day or two earlier, at which time.... That's why the prawns study would move into that time slot.

I believe that most on the committee would agree that we'd like to wrap up the salmon study as quickly as possible. I assume that it's a priority for the committee, but it's my understanding from the clerks that there was an issue with confirming the witnesses' ability to communicate effectively with the committee. That could create a day or two—or some meeting time—that would be available, at which time we would move ahead with prawns. That's my understanding.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Morrissey.

Madam Gill.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to talk about two issues.

First, can we determine when we will have completed the study and written the report? As my colleague Mr. Arnold said, there's no point in scheduling more studies if we don't have time to do them. I mentioned the idea of adding a summer schedule. Since the committee is sovereign, if something needs to be addressed urgently, as is the case with shrimp, we can certainly meet. I would agree to do that. That said, I would like to at least have an idea of what we are planning.

Second, I would like to hear from my colleagues on the issue of studies involving Quebec. I've heard absolutely nothing about it. We are trying to achieve gender parity and we want to represent all the people, but I would not feel represented here at all if we did not deal with Quebec issues. Of course, I know that emergencies do happen, although any emergency is relative.

Can I at least get an idea of the schedule between now and the end of June?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Madam Gill.

Twice now you've raised the issue of meetings in the summer. We did do it last summer, but I think that was an agreement among the whips at the time because the House, like the rest of Canada, got turned upside down in March. There wasn't much that took place for a certain length of time. We were just trying to catch up as we went with a number of meetings throughout the summer.

I don't know. That's not for the committee to decide right now. I guess the whips will discuss that among the various parties and see what they want to do about this summer, if it's going to be any different.

Mr. Bragdon.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This could be a bit of a question. We're saying that the holdup on the Pacific salmon study could be with regard to the arranging of witnesses. Let's say there's a seven-day period between now and next Wednesday. Tentatively we could look at that one for furthering the west coast and the Pacific salmon study.

I'm wondering if something within the department as it relates to the budgetary aspect of the Pacific salmon study could be arranged for Monday's meeting since it's within the department. I think that's something that should be considered. We could cover quite a bit of ground and, again, be focused on the Pacific salmon study and keep moving the ball down the court to get as much of this done as possible in a timely fashion. I just raise this as a possibility.