Fisheries Committee on Sept. 16th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Mr. Arnold, go ahead.

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

Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a small amendment in consideration of what MP Barron has said so that the end of the motion would read “and that these meetings begin immediately following the cod and derelict vessels study.” It would remove the words “the completion”, because otherwise we would have to wait until the report is completely finished to begin. We could do it while we're waiting for version one or version two.

Does everyone understand that? It would read “and that these meetings begin immediately following the cod and derelict vessels study.”

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Is this for the Fisheries Act?

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

No. I'm speaking to Mr. Perkins' motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Okay. There's a timetable for the Fisheries Act to be done as well.

Mr. Kelloway, go ahead, followed by Mr. Hardie.

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

Yes, I'm going to entertain Mel's subamendment in a second.

With respect to the two studies, it's clear to me how that's going to unfold. I really do think that the study of the Fisheries Act is really critical. There's no question that over the last number of years there have been very many challenges with respect to the fishery on both coasts, and there are a lot of reasons for that. Some of it is environmental, and some of it transcends in other ways.

For me, the Fisheries Act and having the ability for all members and all parties to come to strengthen the Fisheries Act—which would hopefully triage some of the challenges we have and turn them into, hopefully, opportunities, but at least provide some solace on the water and on the ground—are really important.

I want to transition from that to some of the other things that were mentioned.

With respect to MP Perkins' motion, the spirit of it I agree with. Mr. Perkins put it very succinctly that the province wasn't involved in a potential agreement, but I do think that we need to do more around this committee with regard to bringing in.... I think we've done this with Newfoundland and Labrador to a degree, but I think we need to bring in the province on a lot of these items.

That's not to say that the federal government has zero responsibility. It has a major responsibility as the steward of the fishery, but the province has as well. A lot of the challenges we have.... It's easy to look at it as simply political, which we all do, but we also need to look at it as practical. There is a huge connection to the provincial governments in terms of cash sales, as Mr. Morrissey mentioned. I think we need to incorporate that in a lot of our motions going further.

The third thing is around Sipekne'katik. I do feel somewhat uncomfortable not including the current chief and council in any discussions with respect to a potential study. I think that's really important. I think there's a process and protocol that we need to be mindful of, and we should look at that as well.

I'll just sum up by saying this: I know that we can't, once again, invent more time, but we do also have a subcommittee. We may want to have that subcommittee look at how we parse out a schedule that really takes into account, as Mr. Perkins said, the most immediate challenges with the fishery and at the same time looks at the Fisheries Act. The Fisheries Act is a huge tool, and it's a huge opportunity for us to strengthen what is happening on the water.

I'll leave it at that, but I'm very concerned that we're seemingly pushing the Fisheries Act down the road and kicking the can. I do think that, yes, the Senate can review it and most likely will. However, I think we would be negligent if we don't do it ourselves. I think it would be wrong. We are the elected officials here.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Mr. Hardie.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's interesting absorbing all of the nuances coming across in the various commentaries.

The Fisheries Act is like a political football in some respects. It gets kicked around a lot. If you had a picture of it, it would be covered with band-aids because over nine years, we've looked at this issue, then this issue and then this issue. It would appear that everything from major policy right through to how the DFO allocates its time needs a good shaking-out.

I don't think this is the sort of thing that we should leave to the Senate. I honestly don't think it's a good thing to leave to any future Parliament. There's a lot of corporate learning here, and some of it isn't going to be here the next time around.

I think it's time we go back. I forget who said this, but a couple of people made the point that we've had some really good studies here. I am among those—probably most of us—who are underwhelmed by the kind of action we've seen from the DFO. Yes, it's always going to be something, as Gilda Radner would say, but we need to really get down to the foundation of this thing and start to build something that's going to be much more proactively involved in dealing with a very changing landscape, be it fish stocks, climate change behind the fish stocks, all of the social and cultural issues we're running into or the fact that our fishery on the west coast has basically collapsed. It used to be the source of such community pride, cultural identity and everything else.

The Fisheries Act needs a good shaking-out. Sure, the current one is absolutely worthy, but it's an example of yet another band-aid being put on a football. It's leaking air like crazy, and with one more good kick, the thing is going to pop.

Let's not lose sight of the responsibility that we have—especially people like me and Mel, who have invested nine years in this thing—to come out of this Parliament with a Fisheries Act that's far more in tune with the challenges we have now and, especially, the ones that are coming.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you.

Mr. Morrissey.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Mr. Chair, I agree with my colleague. This is the committee that's designated under the legislation to review the Fisheries Act. There's reference to the Senate as well, but to have this elected, appointed committee not review the act, I think we would be sidestepping our responsibility as a committee.

I agree with the studies that have been put forward. In fact, the last one we discussed here, on the motion by Mr. Perkins, is very timely. If we're simply going to keep delaying the Fisheries Act and run out of time as a committee, I will be disappointed. You, Mr. Arnold, Mr. Hardie and I were the original members of the committee that reviewed the current act. It was extensive. It was in the early days. I've forgotten the exact timeline on it.

To do the act justice, it should come back to the committee to seek input from fishers on both sides on changes that can be made, because a lot of the issues we're dealing with are governed through and by the act. We had this discussion this spring, I believe, or some time ago, when I made the motion to bring the Fisheries Act to the committee for review. It was sometime last winter, I believe, or last spring, and it kept getting delayed.

Each one of these is a valid issue and motion that should be discussed. In fact, I'm very interested in all of them, but I'm confused about where we're going in relation to the Fisheries Act at this moment. Maybe we accept the position put forward by Mr. Kelloway to have the subcommittee take a look at what's on it. Yes, we could reduce it. Am I correct?

Could the clerk inform the committee how many days were attached to the fisheries study?

[The Clerk]

It was eight meetings.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

It was eight.

I'm sure we could, if we got together, move some of them now. The one part that I didn't fully understand, and Ms. Barron may be able to speak to it, was the relationship between derelict vessels and the fishery. I know what it is from a transport perspective, but—

[A voice]

[Inaudible—Editor]

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

It's the derelict vessels study. It's the relation of derelict vessels to the fishery.

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

On a point of order, that's not relevant to the motion before us.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

That's fine, Mr. Chair. I will go back. I just wasn't sure on that.

The Fisheries Act is the one that is very relevant to this particular committee. I would like to know where we're going—

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

I have a point of order.

I realize that we have only four minutes left and we're going over the same ground again. I understand that the government doesn't want to hear from first nations about why they rejected their study, but can we get on with it?

This is two meetings. Somehow, government members are confused that this will delay some magical study of the Fisheries Act. Why don't they want to hear from first nations about why the government rejected peace on the water? Let's get on with it and vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Mr. Kelloway.

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

That's a hard act to follow, so I won't try.

Look, I think we need to look at some practical ways of moving forward. Again, I think we met once, maybe, as a subcommittee. I don't know if you see value in that in terms of trying to find some common ground here with respect to several studies that are very important.

I want to go back and say, though, because I think it bears repeating, that I know back home—

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

There are two minutes left.

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

Thank you, Mr. Perkins.

Is that the two-minute warning? Thank you very much.

I know that my folks back home, those who are in the fishery, are very eager to present to this committee in terms of the Fisheries Act and to strengthen it where it needs to be strengthened. I suspect it's the same for all of you. While there are, at the same time, as MP Arnold mentioned, many challenges that pop up on a given day, let alone week or month, I look at the Fisheries Act to some degree as an engine that can help in terms of addressing the long-term challenges and maybe even the mid-term challenges of what we face.

Again, in relation to this committee, I've been here for three years now. I know that MP Arnold and MP Hardie and MP Morrissey have been on this committee for nine years. I think we've done a really good job, as a committee, of not really going down the ideological partisan road. If we're looking at—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

We have a point of order by Mr. Small.

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

Mr. Chair, Mr. Kelloway is misled in thinking that Conservatives don't want to study the failed 2019 Fisheries Act. We're not trying to not study it. We simply want a couple of meetings to study the opportunity that was laid out before his government, his NDP-Liberal government, to try to get peace on the water. It was an agreement between commercial and indigenous fishers to have an agreement that his former boss denied them.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

Can I continue?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

You have about 30 seconds.