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
Bobby Morrissey Liberal Egmont, PE
My request is to speak on the amendment by Mr. Kelloway. Can I do that now?
Liberal
Bobby Morrissey Liberal Egmont, PE
Thank you.
Chair, I want to speak to my colleague's subamendment, because when I go back to the main motion, I hope this committee will focus on how fishers are impacted by the decisions of the department and various ministers.
Everybody knows what John Crosbie said. I don't have to repeat the famous quote of then-minister John Crosbie when he said something like, “I did not take your fish”. He was more explicit than that.
What we have, over the years.... The question should be on the government and the scientific bureaucracy of the department and why it has failed the fishing industry. I'll be candid. The tone of this, to me, appears to simply be playing politics with the visceral wording of the motion. I would prefer for this committee to focus on who should be the object of any study—it is the fishers. They have every right to demand more from collective governments. We could reference nine years and six fisheries ministers. I could reference eight years and one and a half ministers. Their records would probably be spotty and questionable as well.
That's why I support Mr. Kelloway's amendment to focus on whom we should be pointing fingers at. Again, Mr. Crosbie said this, and he was right. He was not the person who made the decisions that led to the decision he had to make. It was simply politicians, in a lot of cases, playing games and being more interested in political posturing than in getting to the issue. I hope the committee will focus on what the issue should be, which is the decisions and the degree and substance of the data the department is charged to get as it provides advice to a minister on the management of the fishery.
We know, and it is clear—I've represented fishers for a long time—that the pressure on every natural resource on both coasts is more than the natural resource can sustain. It appears that we increasingly advance the sophistication of our fishing fleet while still not looking clearly at what is happening with the stock.
Nothing in here talks about something the official opposition glosses over, which is climate change and its impacts. I'm dealing with a situation now in my riding with oysters. Everybody is pointing to the warming water that has caused MSX to explode in the inland bays of Prince Edward Island.
With the wording of Mr. Small's motion as it is, I will not support it, simply because it's political grandstanding. The focus should be on the fish harvesters who, in a lot of cases....
I do not have direct experience with the issue of northern cod, but I take it at face value that there were some legitimate questions about some of the decisions made around it. That's why, Mr. Chair, I will support the motion as amended and subamended a number of times. It's because it will allow the committee to focus on what it should be doing, the management of the stock and the decisions that are being made.
Simply throwing everything in and referencing the particular government.... We could replace Justin Trudeau with Stephen Harper, Jean Chrétien and Brian Mulroney. What a host. You might want to go back to Diefenbaker, but the reality is that, from where we are sitting, I would hope that a government and a collective Parliament would actually be focused on the challenges that will continue to grow as they relate to the natural wild harvest on all coasts. Again technology is equipping an industry with a fishing capacity that we don't know the stock, through its natural growth, can sustain.
We've done a number of studies here, Mr. Chair. It's questionable whether some of these fishers in certain areas may ever fish again in our lifetimes, so the intent of studying the decision around northern cod is a valid one. It's one I agree with. This committee should put a decision like that under the scope of a public committee.
Conservative
Clifford Small Conservative Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL
I have a point of order, Chair.
With all due respect to Mr. Morrissey, he referenced visceral. There's no visceral intent. Mr. Kelloway's motion removed, I think, what Mr. Morrissey would be framing as visceral. I think we should get to the vote on this. It's very important—
Conservative
Clifford Small Conservative Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL
—to me, as a former fisherman who was fishing when the moratorium was called. My family and many friends and relatives right throughout the province were fishing in 1992. It is very offensive to them to see this motion being watered down and debated. Let's get it to a vote and get our study going so that we can bring in the stakeholders and the people who were involved in making this decision to turn the stewardship fishery into a commercial fishery. Get them before this committee so we can get to the bottom of how this decision was made.
Liberal
Bobby Morrissey Liberal Egmont, PE
Thank you, Chair.
I could repeat all my comments that were made. They still speak to what should be the focus of this committee, which is the impact that the decisions made by government had on specific fisheries. That I agree with. It was the blatant political tone of the motion that really didn't do anything. Again I, as a committee member, have the right to question what the objective was here. I want to focus on the actual issue before us, which is the future of the cod fishery on the east coast, primarily to the north. That was identified. Madame Desbiens wanted to expand it, which is fine. They're complementary.
That's why, Mr. Chair, I can support the motion, which is a valid motion, and I would be interested in having witnesses appear. The way it would be amended by Mr. Kelloway, the only focus would be on the issue at hand, which is the stock and the impact on the fishers. I could not support the original motion as it was worded, because I for one in this committee simply feel that the interests of the fishers were not put foremost when the original motion was produced.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
Seeing no other hands up, I'll ask the clerk to call the vote.
(Amendment as amended agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Now the motion as amended has to be voted on, so I'll ask the clerk—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
That was on the amendment. Now we have to do the main motion as amended. I'll ask the clerk to....
Go ahead, Ms. Barron.
NDP
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
The motion as amended by Mr. Kelloway is what we're voting on now.
(Motion as amended agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Arnold, do you have your hand up?
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to move the following motion:
That the committee request the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard to appear before the committee for no less than two hours, within 14 days of the adoption of this motion, in relation to her mandate and current priorities for fisheries, oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard.
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
We're back.
We've all heard the motion as presented by Mr. Arnold. Is there any discussion?
Mr. Kelloway.
Liberal
Mike Kelloway Liberal Cape Breton—Canso, NS
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I didn't say that it's great to see everyone back after the summer.
I was going to put forward a motion with respect to this as well. The minister is available on October 9, and I'd like to put that forward. Maybe there's a way to meld what has been put forward here and look at October 9. With regard to the two hours, I know that she's committed to coming for an hour, but we can certainly go back and look to see whether she's available for two.
I just wanted to put that out there.
I'll yield the floor, Mr. Chair.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Kelloway. I hadn't seen your motion. We would be willing to accept October 9 as a date for the minister to appear, but we would absolutely request that it be for two hours.
If we need to amend the motion, it would be that the minister would appear on October 9 instead of “within 14 days”.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
Is everybody okay with that amendment?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Motion as amended agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The motion is carried that the minister will appear for two hours on October 9.
Mr. Perkins.
September 16th, 2024 / 12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have a motion. We are in committee business, but since I didn't give advance notice, I'll read it out. The clerk can circulate it to everyone, and perhaps you guys want to take a few minutes to consider it after I read it.
My motion is that—
