Fisheries Committee on Sept. 16th, 2024

[An hon. member]

It's whatever witnesses we get.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Yes. I'm flexible.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

All right. We've heard the subamendment by Ms. Barron.

Mr. Perkins, go ahead.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's nice to see everyone again.

I think that's a good compromise. We've done it before. We've done two studies simultaneously. Given that we need to find the space for witnesses in both studies, it gives the clerk some flexibility to work out which one on which day works best with regard to which witnesses are available.

This is a critical issue. We've had a fishery that has been closed essentially to commercial fishery since 1992, which is 32 years, and the main harvesting stakeholders are not happy with the decision. I know that everyone across the country, when they saw the national media stories that the commercial fishery was back—“Isn't this wonderful? The cod fishery is back,” as the media reported it—were probably surprised to learn the union representing the harvesters and a lot of scientists and others were concerned about two aspects of this: One is the move from 13,000 to 18,000, and the other is the allowance by the government to have NAFO vessels, most likely Spanish and Portuguese, on the edge of our waters again fishing cod, which I understand are there now. These are the countries that contributed significantly to the collapse in the early 1990s.

This is a very urgent issue as the fishing is going on now, so I think MP Barron's subamendment to MP Kelloway's amendment to MP Small's motion is a valuable compromise.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Mr. Morrissey, I apologize for not going to you after Ms. Barron, as I said I would.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Mr. Chair, I wish to speak to the amendment of Mr. Kelloway. I have no problem with Ms. Barron's subamendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Do you still want to speak to Mr. Kelloway's amendment?

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Can we do that while there's a subamendment?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Is it the subamendment first? Okay.

Mr. Arnold.

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

I just want to clarify something. I believe I heard Ms. Barron state that the study be started immediately. Is that correct?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Yes.

Go ahead, Mr. Small.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think it's very important that we stick with the original motion's direction to have at least four meetings, because this northern cod fishery is extremely important to Newfoundland and Labrador. Cutting the number of meetings down from four to two would be a complete injustice to those who make their living on the water in Newfoundland and Labrador and who have been hurting.

Who knows what the future holds? The fishery's up and down every year, so we have to make sure that we're doing the right thing for this stock.

Given the track record of the foreign nation member countries of NAFO on overfishing outside of our 200-mile limit and sneaking in across.... Last year, the number of enforcement days by DFO patrol vessels was less than half of the seven-year running average. The danger is that NAFO countries will get up to their old tricks again and steal our fish as a result of this decision to move the stewardship fishery to a commercial fishery, and it puts the future recovery of our northern cod stock in great jeopardy.

To give something that is as important as this to Newfoundland and Labrador and the fishing industry only two meetings would be a great injustice, so I support Ms. Barron's subamendment to have four meetings and carry on from there.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Ms. Barron.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Thank you.

It sounds like we're wrapping up the discussion on the subamendment, so I want to add a quick point.

First of all, there's a reason why I got right down to the meetings. I'm glad it sounds like we have everybody in agreement. We'll see if this vote moves forward in the right direction.

Honestly, what's coming forward in these motions is interesting reading. As a reminder, I grew up in Newfoundland and was there during the time the Conservatives were in government. How many years were they in power? Was it 11 years?

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

It was eight years.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

They were in power for eight years. I felt first-hand the impacts of the prioritization of large corporations and of putting the interests of local fishers on the back burner. I want us to really make sure that we are taking the time to have a thorough discussion and not come up with just a band-aid solution.

My family is not the only family that picked up and moved away from Newfoundland as a result of the impacts of the cod moratorium and the government's neglect, allowing overfishing to happen for generations. We knew this was coming. Now we're in the position to see the Liberal government making the same mistakes the Conservatives did before them. It is a mess.

I'd like for us to look at the bigger picture of what's happening and make sure that we get people with real, lived experience, who are out on the boats and who live in these coastal communities. Let's hear from them and implement real solutions to avoid continuing the cycle of putting local fishers' best interests last and putting corporate interests first.

I just wanted to highlight that.

I'm not overly concerned about the introduction, because as long as we're getting the right people at the table and we're putting into place long-term solutions that benefit the good people of Newfoundland and Labrador, that's the approach we need to be taking.

I really hope we look at four meetings, because two are certainly not going to give this topic the justice it requires.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Mr. Kelloway, go ahead.

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

It's great to see the art of compromise here. Having four meetings to focus on cod is exceptionally important. I'll grant you that, and thanks for making that overture to looking at broadening the study in terms of industry writ large over the past number of years.

The other thing I want to say—and I know we're back here and we're back into the rough-and-tumble days of a minority government. I don't know of any MP who does not deeply appreciate how important the cod industry is and what it means not only to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians but also to these folks here in the fisheries, so let's study that. Let's also look at derelict vessels, as we suggested.

I would also say that we should keep in mind that we can't invent more time, but the review of the Fisheries Act is really important. I think that speaks to a lot of what's being talked about here—how we can collectively put forward recommendations that are going to strengthen key points. I would suggest there are some great connections between parties and what should go into recommendations, but there also might be some nuances here. On this side, we're open to looking at those as well.

I think in the next little bit, concurrently looking at the derelict vessels, the cod study and the Fisheries Act will be exceptionally important for this committee and, I dare say, for this Parliament. This is an important act that we need to strengthen, and I look forward to getting to that one too.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Mrs. Desbiens.

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm inclined to agree with Ms. Barron's amendments on the four meetings. I also agree with the spirit of the motion. I'd just like us to include Quebec and the St. Lawrence River, because we have cod fishing too.

Twenty‑five or thirty years ago, my father predicted there would be a moratorium on cod fishing. He told me to eat cod, because he believed there would be a moratorium one day.

In my opinion, it's in our interests to include Quebec and the St. Lawrence River in our study. Consequently, we need to include Quebec in the motion, as well as the impacts of opening the fishery on stocks that will or won't be in the St. Lawrence River, depending on management by the department.

Mr. Chair, do you want me to provide the committee with the official version of my amendment or would you rather we just discussed it now?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

The clerk has asked me to suspend for a moment, Madame Desbiens.

We will suspend.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

We're back. I think what we have to do now is deal with the subamendment by Ms. Barron. Is everybody okay with the intent of Ms. Barron's motion as given? Okay. That's good.

(Subamendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Now we'll go on to Madame Desbiens' subamendment to that.

Go ahead whenever you're ready, Madame Desbiens.

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Everything was quickly resolved, Mr. Chair. You were quite efficient.

My subamendment seeks to add Quebec, since there's cod in the St. Lawrence River too.

I would like the motion by my colleague Mr. Kelloway to talk about a study on the impact of reopening the cod fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador, and Quebec, since reopening it will have an impact on stocks in the St. Lawrence River in Quebec, and that this could happen to any other fishery elsewhere in Canada and Quebec, which could cause future harm.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

You've heard the substance of the subamendment. Are there any problems or issues with it?

Go ahead, Mr. Small.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to see it so I could read it and see what it really means. We might need a couple of minutes to look at the content of that and investigate it. Could we have that, please?