Fisheries Committee on May 3rd, 2021

[The Clerk]

Could we ask Madame Gill to read out her amendment?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Madame Gill.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

For the word “permanently”, I just wanted to substitute “the current fishing season.”

[The Clerk]

Thank you.

(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

The amendment is defeated. Now we'll go back to the original motion.

[The Clerk]

Mr. Johns, you have your hand up.

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

Mr. Chair, I had my hand up after Ms. Gill, and you asked me to hold my comments.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Oh, yes, I did.

I'm sorry. I apologize, Mr. Calkins. You're up, sir.

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

Thank you.

Sorry, Gord, but we'll get to you.

I think we have the opportunity here to summon the minister. I don't know why we would beat around the bush and wait to hear from departmental officials when we have the opportunity to intervene immediately and talk to the minister. It looks like the committee is unanimous in its support for the stakeholders who are here. Like I said earlier—just to reiterate, so I'm on the record at the right point in time of the debate—rarely do we have this kind of unanimity. Rarely have we seen something as obviously unjust. Even though it might seem like a minor issue, this is a very important technical issue for the harvesters; and we have an opportunity as a committee, I think, to actually influence change in a relatively short order. Goodness knows that the good ship Canada does not usually change direction in a timelier and quick fashion at all. I don't know why we would be hesitant or reluctant to do that.

I don't see this as being confrontational or combative with the minister at all. If the dozen or so of us at this table are all feeling the same way about this issue, then surely to goodness if we brought our colleague, who is the minister, to the table to have the conversation, I don't see how that could be combative at all. I see it as being constructive on behalf of the fishers. I don't know, for the life of me, why we would hesitate to use what little influence we have sometimes as a committee to influence that change as quickly as possible.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Calkins. We'll now go to Mr. Johns.

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

I had misread the dating on this. I think this is a good motion. This isn't that complicated. They can't need weeks to work on this, to come back to us to explain their decision. They made up their mind on this. It should have been well thought out. It shouldn't be hard for the minister to get the information tomorrow and come before us on Wednesday. I'll absolutely be supporting this motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Johns.

Mr. Bragdon, you had your hand up.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this again.

Thank you, Mr. Johns. I agree that all parties here have agreed on the need to do this and we've heard from each of these witnesses. I think it's very important for the harvesters to have a signal sooner rather than later and have certainty around this, so that there's not, in the midst of COVID and all the other uncertainties right now in the global markets, further uncertainty with this left ambiguous. We don't know exactly when we're going to hear from future witnesses, and action is being delayed. Let's take action on this. We seem to have all agreed on what we need to do here. Let's act get it done sooner rather than later, so that our harvesters have the certainty they need. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Bragdon.

Mr. Arnold.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll be quite brief.

I have to agree that we have Canadians—the harvesters and the communities they support and that support them—who need some certainty as they move forward, certainly through this year and beyond. I think it is a quite reasonable request of the minister to explain or at least to provide some information back to the committee immediately so that the harvesters and Canadians can have some certainty going forward.

That's all I'll add at this time. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Arnold.

Mr. Beech.

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Burnaby North—Seymour, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to utilize this opportunity to reiterate what I have often reiterated to this committee, that the minister is always happy to come and meet with her colleagues on the fisheries and oceans committee. That said, I don't think I've witnessed such a short deadline, at least not in the five and a half years I've been serving on these committees. The minister is already invited to present to this committee on the salmon study. By passing this motion, we would, of course, be deferring the next salmon study meeting.

The opposition has an opportunity to ask about this issue every single day during question period. I would just suggest that if this is the ultimate priority of the committee, perhaps we would give the minister a bit more time in order to make an appearance. However, that's just me.

I also think there is a reasonable argument for listening to the DFO officials and then having the minister come in, but the committee is independent and the committee can do whatever it sees fit.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Beech.

Mr. Hardie.

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

Mr. Chair, there are two dynamics here: what the DFO has done and how they've done it.

If the minister comes swooping in and says, “No, let's clear the decks here; we're just going to let this go on as it is,” I would hate to see the DFO, in effect, let off the hook of having to come in here and explain themselves in this process. We want to ask, why did they do that, and most importantly, why did they do it the way they did?

I think there's a learning opportunity, shall we say, for the DFO to come in and spend a little time being slow-roasted here, which I'm sure our committee members are quite capable of doing. I would like to see that happen, as opposed to just rushing to a conclusion.

Let's give the DFO the fair process they obviously haven't given other people.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Hardie.

Mr. Calkins.

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

Thank you.

I would respectfully say in response to Mr. Hardie's comments that the issue at hand isn't the slow-roasting of departmental officials whose salary and paycheques do not depend on any specific timeline at all. We have individuals at the table here for whom a fishery season starts, who have laid out cash and have put their livelihoods on the line, and who need a decision on this in a timely manner.

If I look at the schedule, the fishing season is supposed to start before we would potentially even have DFO officials coming back to the table, so I don't know why we'd hesitate. Nothing would stop us, after having the minister in as soon as possible, from going back and exploring the hows and whys and the consultation process retroactively.

I think what's urgent right now is to fix a problem. Otherwise, why did we have this committee meeting in such a rushed manner? We had so many other committee studies that we'd adopted over the last year and a half of this Parliament. It was so urgent to get this done in a timely fashion, and now, all of a sudden, it's not urgent because, lo and behold, we want the minister to come before the committee.

As I said, I don't see this as being a confrontational thing. As members of this committee, we have an opportunity here to actually fix something that, it appears on every level, no mind at this table can fathom or figure out the possible motivation for. It's just something, an oversight or whatever the case might be, but there's nothing here the minister can't explain and nothing here the minister can't overturn.

We have an opportunity immediately to correct an injustice, or what appears to be an injustice. I don't know why we would hesitate in the name of figuring out how this all went awry. We can do that later. Right now, we have an injustice that needs to be fixed in a timely fashion so that people can get out on the water and earn a livelihood, which, goodness knows, is getting hard enough to do in this country.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Before I go to Mr. Morrissey, I will say to the witnesses here that you're free to leave the meeting at any time. You don't have to stay, or you can if you want to for your own pleasure. I just wanted to let you know that you can exit the meeting at any time.

I'll go now to Mr. Morrissey.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Thank you, Chair.

I just need clarification. What are we discussing? Is it bringing the minister?

The motion, unless it was changed—I don't believe it was—is that the chair, the parliamentary secretary and Liberal Party committee members request an audience with the fishery minister tomorrow. We're going to have an audience tomorrow. I'm not sure if I'm ready for an audience tomorrow to ask her to permanently rescind the reinterpretation, and the Liberal members report back to the committee.

I would like the clerk to give an opinion on when a committee has directed other members of the committee to take an action on behalf of the committee. I find that a bit perplexing.

Mr. Chair, could you explain just where we're going on this or have the mover explain it?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

I can ask Mr. Bragdon to explain it, I guess.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Mr. Chair, I want clarification on voting to direct certain members of the committee to take a particular action. Is that within the scope of the committee's mandate?