Evidence of meeting #118 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 chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Patrick Weiler Liberal West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC
—are the Conservatives planning on gutting it again? Is that why they're filibustering this study to look at what is the most important piece of legislation for this committee?
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
It's not a point of order. If we wants the floor, he can get on the speakers list. He has to wait his turn unless he has a true point of order, Mr. Chair.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
Well, maybe the only way he can get to speak is to interrupt on a point of order.
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
That's not the way to get on the speakers list. You should know the rules, Mr. Chair.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
He was on the speakers list before, and I haven't recognized you at all.
Mr. Arnold has the floor. Mr. Arnold has the floor. Mr. Arnold has the floor.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I will carry on, but I have to carry on by responding somewhat to Mr. Weiler's accusations.
We've had witness after witness appear at this committee, and when they're asked if they have been consulted, they say, we have been told. Or if they were consulted and provided information, that information was taken back and basically disregarded.
The biggest concern right now is the marine protected areas and the northern shelf bioregion off British Columbia's coast. The industry members got together and put together a plan that would have basically reduced job losses, reduced economic losses, combined with providing protection for areas off B.C.'s coast. They provided something that was very workable. They were actually trusting enough of the department that when they were asked, can you provide us with where the best areas or most productive areas are—so that they could supposedly avoid shutting those most productive areas down—they provided all of that information to the department. Then, when they got the results back of what was going to be closed down, lo and behold, their most productive areas were the targets of those closures.
When I was out meeting with them this summer they indicated that they feel so betrayed that they would now simply refuse to provide any data to the department. Basically, they got neutered, so they're going to neuter the department by not providing the department with any information. That is not a workable partnership, by any means.
The fisheries sector, the harvesters, could provide so much information to the department. Again, we've heard witnesses time and time again saying that they would like to provide the information to the department, but the department either refuses or is unable to accept it.
We have a shrinking shrimp fishery fleet off B.C.'s coast. One of the shrimp boat captains went for a trip on the research vessel and identified that the research vessel had their net set up completely wrong. He spent some time on that vessel, looked at how it was set up and advised them how to set it up. I don't know whether it was that vessel or one very similar that went out and did a test fishery with totally different results. He was told that they could not use the results that showed higher abundance and a much higher biomass and smaller bycatch, basically because that wasn't the way the department had been doing it for the last 30 years, so they couldn't change. They could operate only under the same system; otherwise, the data would not be reliable.
It simply doesn't make sense to me, and I don't know who that would make sense to.
These are just a couple of examples of what's taking place between the department and the harvesters. If we're going to revise the Fisheries Act— and nobody is even talking about revising an act—according to the section in the Fisheries Act, it is to be reviewed five years after implementation.
I hear Mr. Morrissey.
Yes. That's what we're trying to do.
Liberal
Mike Kelloway Liberal Cape Breton—Canso, NS
Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.
That literally is what we're trying to do tonight. We want to strengthen the owner-operator. It seems to me there's a hidden agenda—
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
On a point of order, that's not a point of order. That's debate.
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
That's not a point of order.
Mr. Chair, could you ask him what rule he's referring to? You've lost control of the committee.
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
You've lost control of the committee. That's not a point of order.
Liberal
Liberal
Mike Kelloway Liberal Cape Breton—Canso, NS
How could you lose the meeting when he's been talking for 50 minutes?
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
Do you know what a point of order is, Mr. Chair?
Liberal
Mike Kelloway Liberal Cape Breton—Canso, NS
Clearly, there's an agenda here to gut owner-operator model. Let's strengthen the owner-operator. Let's get to work.
Conservative
Liberal
Mike Kelloway Liberal Cape Breton—Canso, NS
Let's get to work. To quote a leader, it's just common sense. Let's get to work.