Evidence of meeting #9 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 lobster.
A video is available from Parliament.
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
You're still on mute, Gord, but I saw your head nod that it was okay.
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
Okay.
Continue, Nancy, please.
(Motion agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)
You have another one that you want to put forward, Madame Gill.
5:35 p.m.
Bloc
Marilène Gill Bloc Manicouagan, QC
Yes, I had two other short motions.
The first pertains to harbour facilities:
That the Committee undertake a study on the Small Craft Harbours Program to determine whether the program's directions are still relevant and whether it is still achieving its objectives, to examine the state of the national system of harbours, to determine whether funds are being distributed fairly among the various types of harbour facilities and regions, and to assess the importance of marine infrastructure on land use and on the development of coastal and First Nations communities.
5:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
Thank you for that.
The interpretation was a little bit late, Madame Gill. I do apologize.
5:40 p.m.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The committee did a fairly extensive study of the small craft harbours situation in the last Parliament. I'm wondering about the utility of doing another one. Perhaps Ms. Gill is focused mainly on Quebec, and perhaps that's the area where some focus might generate some additional information to build on what we learned from our last study.
5:40 p.m.
Liberal
5:40 p.m.
Bloc
Marilène Gill Bloc Manicouagan, QC
Yes. I agree completely with Mr. Hardy on this topic.
Not all the data that I'm asking for is included in the study. Of course, Quebec isn't part of the study at all. However, there are many small craft wharves in the regions of Quebec. That's why it would be good to complete the study and to have the same data, so that we can look at the issue.
The study doesn't need to be very long either. The study can be very short if it has been partially completed. It could be completed at this point.
5:40 p.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
Normally I would be very supportive of a motion dealing with small craft harbours. I've been a member of this committee for several years now and have participated in at least three, if not four, studies on small craft harbours
I've been as far to the east on the coast as you can get, as far to the west on the coast you can get. I've been to the Arctic. I've been to all of our freshwater places in Manitoba and others. All one would have to do would be to go back and take the last four copies of the small craft harbour reports, read them, reword them and issue the fifth copy of the small craft harbour report, and it wouldn't look any different from the first four.
While I appreciate the politics of doing this, there are a number of really important issues, like recreational fishing, like this whale issue we have on the east coast, which I don't remember this committee ever doing a study on, that I think we should actually spend the committee's time and effort pursuing.
5:40 p.m.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have to echo Mr. Calkins' comments. We did a fairly extensive study of small craft harbours from coast to coast to coast in the last Parliament and submitted that report. I have to agree that there are many other pressing issues.
We have declining salmon stocks on the west coast. We have declining Atlantic salmon on the east coast. We have cod stocks that still haven't recovered. We have incredibly significant issues with our fisheries. It's not that small craft harbours are not a significant issue, but unless we can get the fish stocks restored, we're not going to have fishermen either. I think we need to focus on fisheries and keep our focus that way.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
5:40 p.m.
Bloc
Marilène Gill Bloc Manicouagan, QC
Thank you.
I understand that only a limited number of studies can be carried out. Mr. Calkins raised the political issue. However, like everyone else, I'm here to represent a constituency. My constituency has 1,500 kilometres of coastline. It isn't the only constituency with that many maritime coastal areas. It has many wharves. Right now, if the study didn't look at the Quebec situation, you should know that some people in our area...
Yes, when we talk about the Pacific region, the salmon issue comes up. I agree with this. However, some coastal communities or entire indigenous communities in our area are dealing with security challenges, because of the harbours. They're losing the fishery altogether. Entire villages and regions are closing down. You'll understand that, for me, the challenges in Quebec are as important as saving the salmon in British Columbia or the peaceful resolution of a conflict that should be resolved simply because the Mi'kmaq have a right to a food fishery. These are my reasons.
I'm wondering when this committee has done a study on Quebec in the past 30 years.
In my view, this is another reason to include Quebec in all the studies, when possible, unlike this time around. As was done for eastern or western Canada, I would include these topics for Quebec in subsequent studies, including a study regarding my third motion on seals, where I also talk about the Atlantic.
Thank you.
5:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
Okay.
Seeing no further discussion on this particular motion....
Mr. Beech.
November 23rd, 2020 / 5:45 p.m.
Liberal
Terry Beech Liberal Burnaby North—Seymour, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I had used the “raise hand” function, but thank you for noticing my wave.
For my friend and colleague, Madame Gill, I know you have several motions that you've given notice of. It sounds like the consensus of the committee is moving towards finishing the moderate livelihood study and moving to finish up the Pacific salmon study, and then there are a couple of options, including the motion that just passed.
Just for the clarity of the committee, could you give us some insight as to what would be your highest priority among the various motions? Would it be the recreational fishing motion that just passed? If you had to choose one of them as your highest priority for the next topic to study, would you be comfortable sharing that information with the committee?
5:45 p.m.
Bloc
Marilène Gill Bloc Manicouagan, QC
I must admit that it's like choosing between each of your children. You don't want to choose one over the other.
It could be recreational fishing. However, as I said before, it's always for economic or social reasons. Whether we're talking about harbours, fishing or even the seal hunt, all these issues matter to me.
I'm both answering and not answering your question. However, it could certainly be recreational fishing.
5:45 p.m.
Liberal
5:45 p.m.
The Clerk
Certainly, Mr. Chair.
The vote is on the motion by Ms. Gill regarding the small craft harbours program.
(Motion negatived: nays 9; yeas 2)
