Evidence of meeting #115 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 study.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.
I'm sorry, Rick. We are in public. We're not in committee business. In public, you need to give a notice of motion.
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
Actually, we are in committee business. It's just public committee business.
What have we been doing publicly with motions other than—
Liberal
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
Okay. I'll start again.
The following is being circulated, I think by email:
That, with regard to media reports that the former Minister of Fisheries and Oceans ignored a peace on the water accord between the Sipekne’katik First Nation and commercial fishermen in Saint Mary’s Bay, and given that in the years following:
(i) organized crime has profited and flourished off the trade of unlicensed lobster harvests; and
(ii) Acadian and first nation communities have been routinely terrorized around the Clare area through arson and violence,
the committee therefore agrees to hold two meetings to investigate why the minister ignored this agreement, and that the committee agree to invite the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, her officials, former chief of the Sipekne’katik First Nation Mike Sack and president of the United Fisheries Conservation Alliance Colin Sproul, and that these meetings begin following the completion of the cod study.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
When you say “the cod study”, do you mean the cod and the derelict vessels one?
Conservative
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
Could I speak to it for a moment?
There were reports in the Chronicle Herald—and I have spoken to the fishing groups, who also confirmed that the reports were correct—that in 2022, on the initiative of then-chief Mike Sack, he reached out to the fishing groups in southwest Nova Scotia to see if they could come to an accommodation, and they did. Some of those details were published in the report that went up to the Minister of Fisheries then—Minister of Fisheries number five—who rejected the deal.
We had peace on the water agreed to at the initiative of first nations and signed off by first nations, and the minister rejected it. I think we need to have a hearing to find out why that happened when all of what we've been talking about for the last year or so here, whether it's the elver fishery, the illegal lobster fishery or some of the motions we've done today, are the outcomes of not signing that agreement for peace on the water between the two nations.
We propose that we have a study and invite those witnesses, the signatories to that agreement, and departmental officials.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
Has that been circulated? Does everybody have a copy?
Is there any discussion?
Liberal
Mike Kelloway Liberal Cape Breton—Canso, NS
Could we have another moment to suspend, if possible, just to...?
Liberal
Liberal
Bobby Morrissey Liberal Egmont, PE
Thank you, Chair.
A lot of this I agree with. It's been ignored for too long, but there are a couple of areas on which I'm not sure this current minister could speak regarding the decision of a former minister. I would like to see whether this agreement is real or not real. It is an alleged agreement. I would like to see if it actually exists. Who do we address for that?
The other part that keeps getting swept under the rug here, Mr. Chair, with respect to cash and illegal activity is the regulatory role of the provinces that license buyers and processors. It's very difficult to have cash or illegal activity if the buyer is actually following the rules regarding who they should be buying from. They should be buying from authorized licensed fisheries who attach a slip, and everybody knows the process. Perhaps we can weave that into Mr. Perkins' motion. There's a lot of good in here. I think we do have to examine it. We have in this committee, ad nauseam, referenced the cash, illegal and unreported activity going on. We've had excellent witness testimony on a number of areas. On all of that I agree with where Mr. Perkins is going, but there are two parts to it.
I'm not sure the current minister would be the person to speak to on a decision that was made a couple of years ago. The other part is that, as it relates to that, I would want to extend an invitation to the relevant ministry of the Government of Nova Scotia, so that this committee could ask what they're doing to control this within their scope of legislative authority, which is on the shore. Most of the illegal activity we're referring to here does not occur on the water but rather when the product comes ashore and is then sold and moved into the marketplace in an illegal, unauthorized and unlicensed form. That's what we're getting to here.
There are two components. The federal government regulates the fishery on the water by and large, but as it relates to the buyer and to the processor, it is the province. We heard that here as well. I agree with where you're going, but I would like to have before this committee all of the relevant jurisdictions that have authority to find out what they're doing to regulate here.
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
I appreciate that.
I will start with the first part. The current minister is the sixth fisheries minister from this Liberal government. I agree, but she has to answer for everything the department has done during that time, not just during her time in that role. If she as fisheries minister doesn't feel comfortable enough to defend everything her government has done in that job, then why don't we add former minister number five, Joyce Murray, to the list? I'm more than willing to have both of them here.
With regard to the province, the province didn't negotiate the agreement. It was negotiated for peace on the water, for the division of licences and for how the federal government would approach supporting first nations going forward in the fishery with regard to licences, boats, training and fishing in a DFO-regulated season. That's the agreement. The province was not at the table for that. That was between the first nations and commercial fishermen and the Minister of Fisheries who rejected the proposal. The province had nothing to do with analyzing whether or not Sipekne'katik should get more licences, how they would get more licences or what support they would get. That was solely at the discretion of former minister of fisheries number five. If minister number six isn't comfortable defending minister number five, then let's have both of them.
NDP
Lisa Marie Barron NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
Thank you, Chair.
I was just rereading all of the information around this. We have to keep up with a lot of things happening across the country here. Thank you to MP Perkins for bringing forward this important discussion.
If we do this study, I look forward to hearing more. It's clearly complex. I'm reading through all of the moving pieces on it, and it sounds as though some resolutions definitely need to be implemented. It's always a good opportunity to hear from those who are impacted and to be able to recognize what those solutions are and to actually see them move forward.
I want to ask whether, in the motion MP Perkins brought forward, we could incorporate at the end, after “after the cod study”, the derelict vessel study that will be happening at the same time to ensure it's clear to all members of this committee the order of these studies.
I propose a subamendment to add, in addition to the cod study, “the derelict and abandoned vessels study”. It's a minor edit...or addition to the motion, I should say.
Liberal
Bobby Morrissey Liberal Egmont, PE
I have one question. The committee has a mandate to study the Fisheries Act, which is really the whole reason the committee exists. The Fisheries Act is the primary piece of legislation that governs everything we do. It's up for review and has to come back. We had agreed to study it, so where does it go in all of this? The Fisheries Act is paramount to everything we're talking about. If we're going to keep pushing it and pushing it.... We don't know the timeline on this particular Parliament.
I feel it's extremely important that the Fisheries Act is scheduled in to be reviewed because now, after five years, there is some tweaking, requested by fishers, that can be done to that act. That's my only question. We're putting a lot in, and where does the Fisheries Act sit in that?
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Mr. Chair, I believe what is written in the act is that it be reviewed. It does not have to be this committee—it could be a Senate committee—that does the review of the Fisheries Act. Earlier, I believe it was the clerk or the analyst who stated that the review of the act is not immediate, so we have time to provide witnesses.
What we see here, which I began to experience only as time progressed during my nine years now on this committee, is that we have more and more urgent, emergency or crisis situations happening, and items come up that we need to study immediately on behalf of the fish harvesters and for the conservation of fish stocks. It's becoming a more recurrent theme that there's an urgent issue that hasn't been dealt with. After nine years on this committee I haven't tallied up how many reports we did, and the government responses to and action on those reports were not respectful of the knowledge around this committee table nor of the witnesses and harvesters who came in and testified.
What we're seeing here is an urgent issue. It's a growing issue that Mr. Perkins raised. The Fisheries Act will continue, but there are, I believe, more pressing issues affecting our fish harvesters right now.
Bloc
Caroline Desbiens Bloc Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île dOrléans—Charlevoix, QC
I want to ask two questions, Mr. Chair.
Did you estimate the time required for the study on the Fisheries Act review, given what has happened in the past? Could we get an idea?
What my colleague said is, in fact, true: There are major crises and challenges we need to focus on. That said, that's never going to change. While we're reviewing the Fisheries Act, there will be other crises and challenges. Furthermore, we'll need to use Standing Order 106(4). We're dealing with an extremely serious situation. Alarm bells are ringing everywhere, meaning wherever there's water and fish to harvest.
I'd just like to know how we could have a short, medium and long-term perspective. I'm thinking of recreational fishing and small craft harbours, which are also on our list.
How could we move forward in that respect? How will we do that in our review of the Fisheries Act? Will we react as emergencies arise? Will we find solutions during our legislative review? Sometimes, rapid action is required.
I agree that the reports we table don't get a quick response. What we're hearing on the ground is that it's disastrous. I know because I spent the summer in the field. The shrimp boats are in dry dock, and everyone is in dire straits.
How should the committee proceed to ensure maximum efficiency and to best respond to alerts in Canada and Quebec?
Here's my question: What's our timeline for reviewing the Fisheries Act? How long will it take, considering the emergencies we also want to deal with? Could we reach consensus on an agenda that would allow us to insert some very urgent studies while at the same time moving forward on our study on illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing? I anticipate the use of Standing Orders 106(4) and 108(2), among others.
Liberal
NDP
Lisa Marie Barron NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
Thank you, Chair.
There are a couple of things.
First of all, when I was bringing forward the addition to this motion, the point around adding the derelict and abandoned vessels to the completion of the cod study, if I could be honest, I was maybe taking it a little bit too literally. It says it would begin following the completion of those studies. In my mind, we would have an additional discussion around how that works out in the timeline. I didn't see it as immediately following the completion, so whether it should be immediately following or not, I'm still not 100% sure, to be honest. The reason is due to the many questions that my colleague Madame Desbiens was just asking.
What I don't understand are some of the pieces that I'm going to be doing some further research and having conversations around, and they are around this act. When we're reviewing it, how much time is required in order for us to actually see the implementation of the recommendations that come forward? How does that work as a committee to see that this work is going to be used effectively and actually carried through?
None of us know when an election is going to happen, but we certainly know it's going to happen within a year, so do we even have enough time, if we go to the full term of what is possible, to complete this?
The other thing is that I agree with my colleague Mr. Arnold that there have been many things coming forward that are urgent in nature. How can you disagree with how important so many of the things coming forward at this committee are?
We need to be taking a moment to look at this act and whether it's effective for us to do that in this timeline that we have, because it's interconnected with many of these issues. We have an outdated Fisheries Act. We're going to see the trickle of impacts of that coming through in many of these emergency motions.
I do prefer, as a committee, that we take a moment to recognize the bigger picture here and recognize that many of the things we're talking about can be talked about when we're reviewing the act as well, because there are many components that are linked.
What I need to understand is, if we study the act, will we actually see that work being carried forward into fruition within the timeline we have remaining? Once I have that information, then I can provide my input on the timeline of how these studies will move forward.