Evidence of meeting #29 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was need.
A video is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Yes, it's on the study.
I heard the clerk mention that she is lining up witnesses for Monday. Could the clerk distribute that list as soon as possible, please? I agree with Mr. Bragdon that we should proceed with drafting instructions and see the minister at a later date.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
Okay. Tina's nodding her head to that suggestion. I'm seeing thumbs up from other members. I'll take that to mean that the clerk now knows what schedule we want to stick to as we go forward.
Mr. Arnold, you wanted to speak to something on the spotted prawn.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Yes, I just wanted to make sure this would fit in today. I quoted what the parliamentary secretary had said. I believe Mr. Bragdon has commented on this point, so I will let him go first.
Conservative
Richard Bragdon Conservative Tobique—Mactaquac, NB
Thank you, Mel, and thank you, Mr. Chair.
I just wanted to make sure about this. I know there was an urgency around getting some clarity and certainty for our prawn harvesters. I know Mr. Johns is compelled by this as well, and other members of this committee. I know there's a statement. It pertained to, it seemed, this season exclusively, but for those who are in the prawn harvesting business, just one season alone is pretty hard on planning purposes. I think they would like to have more certainty for the longer term.
I'm wondering if the parliamentary secretary can bring more light to this or provide a little more clarity for the rest of us. I know we saw the statement today, but it seemed very much limited to just this season, and I think the prawn harvesters would like to have a bit more certainty than that as it relates to this change in the interpretation of the regulations. I look forward to hearing from the parliamentary secretary.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
I understand your concerns, Mr. Bragdon, and I will let Mr. Beech respond.
My understanding of it was that we would get some certainty that nothing would change for this upcoming season because they really don't have the time to really adapt to the change. I don't want to speak on behalf of Mr. Beech, but he did say that we would know for certain, or that the harvesters would be given a guarantee, so to speak, that it would be this season. That's my memory on it. If somebody wants to correct me on it, they can.
Go ahead, Mr. Beech.
Liberal
Terry Beech Liberal Burnaby North—Seymour, BC
I'm happy to address this question, and thanks for the opportunity for the clarification.
My understanding was that there was a desire from committee members to get clarification as quickly as possible, given the testimony that was given, and that it couldn't wait until we spoke to officials because people wanted to start acting on this season and planning for this season. We were able to provide that clarification in less than 12 hours, with the release going out at 10:30 in the morning on May 4. I'm very happy that happened.
I would suggest that everyone on the committee prepare for the officials who are going to be meeting with us next, and then we can go from there. This solution that was provided was obviously not done overnight; it was done in consultation with industry, which the department and the minister has been engaged with.
For right now, in the short term—that 24-hour window—I think we met our commitments, and I look forward to the committee's next part of the study with the officials.
Liberal
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The discussion on Monday was about the concerns of the harvesters, and it's not just a one-year project for some of these harvesters. They have to make significant investments—
Bloc
Marilène Gill Bloc Manicouagan, QC
Mr. Chair, I'm sorry to interrupt the proceedings again, but the same problem is happening with Mr. Arnold. The interpreter tells me that it is difficult for him to do his job.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
I've moved it up. I hope that's better. I'm getting a nod from the clerk.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll start over for Madame Gill.
On Monday the discussion was because these harvesters need certainty. They're making significant investments in their vessels and paying tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars for freezers. That equipment isn't just a one-year process or a one-year investment for them. They also need to line up suppliers for their products, such as the tubs they're using. All of those pieces come into play. They're looking for long-term certainty and they were looking for an indefinite or a permanent reversal on this reinterpretation. That was what we'd hoped to see back from the minister.
The commitment was that the committee would discuss it further if we weren't happy with it. We've heard from the stakeholders that the statement put out by the minister and the parliamentary secretary was just more of the same. It's a status quo for this year with no commitment after that time, and that's not what these stakeholders need.
Around this committee we saw members from all parties nodding heads, realizing that this reinterpretation was impacting the harvesters and the communities they support. It needed immediate action, and all we saw was a restatement of the position that it is not going to be enforced this year, and nothing beyond that. That's not what the harvesters and Canadians are looking for.
That is why I think we need to see a stronger statement or a stronger position, and a longer-term position from the minister on this reinterpretation. Perhaps the regulation needs to be changed, because from what I see, it is in the wording of the regulation, and enforcement staff are expected to enforce the regulations as written. The minister has the power to change those regulations, so we need to know why the reinterpretation was implemented and why it cannot be reversed. Why is the minister dragging her feet on this?
Thank you.
Liberal
NDP
Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC
I agree. It's not very often that we all agree on one thing, and this is something we all agree on.
The whole coast thinks this is an injustice to these fishers and their way of life, something they've been doing for over 50 years. Yesterday's announcement of relief for one season wasn't good enough. They're still going out fishing worried about their future. This is unnecessary.
We were expecting a much bolder statement. Our committee was unified on Monday in joining coastal British Columbians on this issue.
I know, Mr. Hardie—and I really appreciate you on this committee—that you wanted to hear from DFO regardless. I actually don't. I actually hope they pull back on this and kill this thing right now, and in the next couple of days tell the fishers that they can do what they've been doing for 50 years and keep managing this good fishery.
Let's use that extra study for salmon or for something we need to continue to get done before the House adjourns in June. That would be the better use of our time and of taxpayers' money and would be in everyone's best interests.
These fishers are reeling from COVID. They are reeling right now from last year and from this year, and the price is impacting them. It's the last thing they need to add to their plate right now.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
Before I go to the next person with their hand up, I will note that our time for the committee has expired. If we want to continue beyond this point, I'll need unanimous consent.
Conservative
Richard Bragdon Conservative Tobique—Mactaquac, NB
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to echo what Mr. Johns just said and what Mr. Arnold said.
We heard very emphatically and clearly from the harvesters. The prawn harvesters were very clear. This isn't just for this summer. They need certainty, and with COVID and what has happened, there is more than enough uncertainty out there for a lot of our harvesters and a lot of our working people.
If we can do something—and we know who can do something—and if the minister can do this right away and get this cleared up expeditiously, as quickly as possible, we will have gone a long way in helping these fish harvesters sleep a bit better at night and in solving a problem that's within the power of the government to solve quickly, rather than having further delays, more examinations, and further testimony. We don't need those things. We're all in agreement. This is just a matter of the minister making a decision and doing what's right for these harvesters.
Thank you.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
We need to make evidence-based decisions. Until I hear what the DFO's rationale was for this sudden change, I'm not prepared to just say, well, it was all wrong, and let it go.
Now, 99% of me says it was a bad decision done in a very poor way. I hope that when we spend one more session, get the DFO in, get their rationale and—pardon the expression—send them away with their tail between their legs, that will do it. The certainty that the harvesters need will come soon enough. One more session with the DFO to hear what they have to say is not going to make a huge difference in the long run in terms of providing the certainty that they need, but it might give us what we need in order to say in no uncertain terms that the change they're proposing shouldn't go forward, period.
That's where I've landed so far, but I need to hear from them. We need to make sure that we know all the angles. We've heard from one group that has a lot of self-interest, as they have the right to do; let's hear from the other one before we really come down and follow our nose and our intuition on this.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
These harvesters are set to go out on the water within the next few days. Their livelihoods and their investments are at stake. Surely the minister can take stronger action than what she has done on this, rather than just repeating what has already been said, which is that they're not going to enforce it this year. The key piece here is “this year”. There's no certainty there.
As I said, the vessels, the equipment on these vessels and the infrastructure to support them are a multi-year investment and a multi-year process. These harvesters need certainty as soon as possible. Once they hit the water, they're busy people. If they're out on the water, they don't have time to follow what's happening at the committee or when the witnesses appear. They have to rely on what happens once they hit shore again or what they hear on the airwaves. They need some certainty before they hit the water this year, and the minister has the authority to do that. Why won't she?