Mr. Arnold.
Evidence of meeting #108 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was fisheries.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #108 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was fisheries.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
As I mentioned, if you can commit to getting back to us, prior to the end of day on Monday, May 6, that she will appear for two hours in May, then I'll table discussions.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
All right.
The motion was amended by Mr. Kelloway.
Do we vote on the amendment and then the main motion?
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
If he's going to provide us with a date and if he's going to commit—
4 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
There is an amendment on the floor. If they agree to what Mr. Kelloway has said and what Mr. Arnold is saying, I don't think we even have to vote.
Yes, Mr. Hardie.
4 p.m.
Liberal
4 p.m.
Conservative
4 p.m.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
—to get back to us before the end of day Monday that he has requested that the minister provide a date in May when she will appear for two hours, I'll accept the adjournment of debate.
4 p.m.
Liberal
Mike Kelloway Liberal Cape Breton—Canso, NS
Okay. That is my mission, and I will follow up on that mission on Monday.
4 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
Okay. Is there any other discussion on the motion and what's taken place?
4 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
4 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
Debate is adjourned.
Thank you, sir. Your time is up. I hate doing that.
Mr. Hanley, you have six minutes or less, please.
4 p.m.
Liberal
Brendan Hanley Liberal Yukon, YT
Thank you very much to all the witnesses for appearing.
You're right. I know one of you pointed out that this is a study concentrating on Yukon River salmon, but there are definitely parallels, many of which you brought up in your testimony.
Maybe, Mr. Knox, I'll start with you.
I wonder about revisiting the Pacific Salmon Treaty. Any of you can maybe jump in to answer this question. Presumably, this is a conversation or a proposal that has happened. What would be the possibility of revisiting and revising the Pacific Salmon Treaty to address this issue, given that it's clearly not working at the moment?
4 p.m.
Executive Director, SkeenaWild Conservation Trust
On the Canadian side of things, there's a lot of recognition of a lot of the challenges. I think even in Washington and Oregon, with both the panellists and commissioners, there's a recognition that there are lots of problems. Alaska is more resistant to any change.
The reason I say this is because there's currently a review of the Pacific Salmon Treaty being done by the Commission for Environmental Cooperation within the treaty. It's assessing these sorts of things, although it isn't clear whether its mandate will actually get at the heart of whether the treaty is actually meeting the principles set out in the treaty, i.e., making sure we're not overfishing each other's populations and that we're getting the benefits from our own populations.
I think that review would need to be revised to really assess whether each chapter is meeting the objectives set out in the treaty and then, from there, to recommend much stronger mechanisms to actually revise the treaty based on the current environmental challenges our salmon are facing and the efforts we're putting into rebuilding these populations.
4 p.m.
Liberal
Brendan Hanley Liberal Yukon, YT
Thank you.
How much of this would be specifically a negotiation or a conversation with the State of Alaska versus relevant U.S. federal departments?
4 p.m.
Executive Director, SkeenaWild Conservation Trust
It would be helpful to have those conversations with the U.S. federal departments because they have influence on the commissioners. Ultimately, we're dealing with commissioners from Alaska, Washington and Oregon all together, not just Alaska itself. The treaty has to be renegotiated by 2028. Our Canadian commissioners are dealing with all of the U.S. commissioners in that renegotiation, and Alaska is part of the U.S. commission.
Diplomatic work in the short term to get U.S. folks on side and, at the same time, discussions initiated with U.S. commissioners at the treaty table both need to happen to create the political will to actually do a thorough review of the treaty and to make the necessary revisions in a timely manner.
Like I said, it has to be laser focused on whether we're meeting the principles set out in the treaty, because they're pretty straightforward, and the current review is not asking those hard questions.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Brendan Hanley Liberal Yukon, YT
Thank you.
It sounds like that could be something our Minister of Fisheries and Oceans could take on in terms of that nation-to-nation conversation to help renegotiate the terms.
4:05 p.m.
Executive Director, SkeenaWild Conservation Trust
Yes, exactly. It would be really helpful to have that leadership from the minister.
Alaska is interested in the health of the transboundary rivers and watersheds that adjoin B.C. One of the conversations we're currently having is with the British Columbia provincial government to see if there can be conversations about how we ensure that the water flowing down into Alaska from our rivers is kept clean. At the same time, they're doing a better job to protect our salmon and steelhead populations.
This can happen not only at the federal level but at the provincial level as well. We've seen some movement by the province on that as well.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
