Debates of Feb. 23rd, 2007

Fisheries Act, 2007

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I hope to lower the noise for just a little bit, if I may, in respect of my hon. colleagues.

I am proud to be standing here today to be talking about this significant act, there is no doubt about it. This is something that replaces an act that existed for well over 137 years, so certainly we take this very seriously.

What I would like to do in my allotted is just point out some of the questions that surround this particularly thick piece of legislation. Questions, I am afraid, probably outnumber all of the comments, all of the negativity, and even the positive comments that come from this. That is what is troubling to us.

For the record, we had requested the government to send this to a committee before second reading, to widen the scope and to gain some insight from across this country. This will not be addressed by sending the legislation to committee after second reading. Unfortunately, it was dismissed and here we are finding ourselves today at second reading.

I would like to start, if I may, with the few notes that I have made and delve into the act itself, as the parliamentary secretary did earlier. Some of those I will take some issue with; some I will have some positive comments about.

The provisions of Bill C-45 represent a significant redirection in the role of public policy with respect to the fisheries on our coast and our inland fisheries. Quite significantly, the devolution of authority appears significant enough to ensure a far greater role for the provinces in terms of management and activities associated with the conduct of the fisheries, as well as a new empowered role for fishers, communities and the organizations which either represent them, or more importantly, employ them. As we all know and my colleagues know, this has been going on for many years, the idea of co-management and the idea of a greater say, which leads me back to my first point.

It is unfortunate that here we are, taking the first step toward a regime where we can have more say in the fishery by the stakeholders, but yet this bill itself did not receive the same process. Suffice it to say, we are not off to a positive start when it comes to recommendations, and certainly with the input.

Let me discuss some of the initial recommendations, and again, my speech will be filled with many questions, some doubts, some positive comments, and some negative comments. But mostly clarification, so that hopefully, through the course of this debate, a lot of this clarification can take place. I would also like some clarification on how far the ministry is prepared to go when it goes to committee, if it goes to committee after second reading.

Let me begin with the preamble. When it comes to the preamble, one of the things it says is: “the conservation and protection of fish habitat and the prevention of the pollution of waters frequented by fish.” It also says that: “Parliament intends that Canada’s fisheries be managed sustainably”.

First of all, we have to talk about “managed sustainably”. There is need for more clarification on this issue and to flush out exactly what it is we are talking about here. The act is a little bit loose in many areas and unfortunately, that would be one of them.

It says “Parliament intends”, and there we have to deal with that as a contentious issue. Members will find that a lot of this act contains a lot of intends, wishes, mays, and all the things that sound great but lack a lot of teeth. Therefore, we are hoping that this part of the bill can be changed and amended. Unfortunately, in my opinion, I do not feel that it can be done to our satisfaction by going to committee after second reading, and this troubles me.

The preamble also states:

WHEREAS Parliament intends that this legislative framework be applied in a manner that fosters cooperation with the provinces and with bodies established under land claims agreements--

Therein lies, with some of the application principles, some of the doubts in some of the feedback that we are getting. No doubt about it, we are getting a lot of positive responses from the provinces. We are also getting a few questions, and a lot of provinces are also, in their own departments, still trying to go through the legal framework of this to wrestle with some of the concepts.

Subsection 35(1) of the Constitution Act recognizes and affirms the existence of aboriginal and treaty rights. It also talks about the stable access.

After that, we find that there is a contentious issue in the preamble itself. It states:

WHEREAS Parliament is committed to maintaining the public character of the management of fisheries and fish habitat;

Many people have commented and questioned, and no doubt about it we will hear a lot of comments and questions from my hon. colleague in the NDP about this particular issue, which I am looking forward to hearing, that the public character of the fishery itself has to be addressed and is something that cannot be addressed within the scope of a committee after second reading.

As a matter of fact, it is my understanding that in many instances in Parliament, as well as the standing committees, many of the attempts to fix a preamble cannot be done in committee after second reading. In many cases, it can be ruled out of order or when it comes back to the House, it can be ruled out of order by the Speaker. Therefore, it puts us in a bit of a bind. As my colleague pointed out in his questions and comments, where is the charter decision from a few years back?

There is another issue that is not addressed here and there is ample opportunity to address it within the preamble as one of the guiding principles, so to speak. There is an issue in my home province of Newfoundland and Labrador and for Atlantic Canada with regard to fleet separation and, more importantly, trust agreements. I think there is room in the preamble to address this issue, as mentioned to me by many groups.

Vertical integration will scare a lot of fishermen. It has always been the policy whereby what trust agreements do is freeze out the inshore fishermen and, therefore, is the cause of grave concern across this country. Some may like this policy, but for the most part they do not.

That is not addressed in this particular act, as it should be. I would compel the minister to please do this, to provide the standing committee the power to do this and, I go back to my original comment, to do this in committee before second reading would have accomplished this.

I will now go to some of the clauses beyond the preamble itself and again I have grave concerns as to whether the preamble can be fixed in this manner of going to committee after second reading. I would implore the minister to answer this question at some point in his speech. I am assuming he will be speaking during this debate.

There are specific clauses which should be examined. There is need for a very significant strengthening of a number of specific clauses. The following, while attempting to be comprehensive, is not exhaustive given additional concerns of respected clauses, not referred to, will likely arise.

I will begin with clause 3. There is the need to ensure that those participating in the fishery are clearly defined. For example, in clause 3 there is reference to organizations as being licence holders while in clause 43, the minister may enter into fisheries management agreements with an “organization”. Clarification around the term “organization” is certainly necessary within the scope of this bill. It keeps it open ended.

I go back to the theme that I talked about in the beginning. There are a lot of open ended variables involved here that need to be clarified, the scope of which, after second reading, is likely not going to be.

Let me go to clause 6. Under the provisions of clause 6, the application of principles, there is the need to strengthen these provisions which will ensure that the minister will take the strongest possible actions in order to ensure that the fisheries are managed in a manner consistent with sustainable development based on the principles, of course, of conservation. The wording of this clause does not necessarily reflect that priority. Again, it is a major question that needs to be clarified.

The implications of clause 7 require careful examination as well. On the surface, it would appear that the minister will be empowered to enter into agreements with the provinces to further the purpose of the act as contained in clause 2, which effectively will devolve management decisions to the provinces. Therefore, I have no contentious issue with that.

However, a lot of clarification is needed on questions of funding. It is touched on in this act, but what does it imply? Does it mean they must or they may? Again, we go back to that concept. If we look at some of the language that is contained within this bill, we will see that there are a lot of variables surrounding this particular issue. For instance, “The minister may, subject to the regulations, enter into an agreement with a province to further the purpose of this Act, including an agreement with respect to one or more of the following”. Again I go back to the issue of “may”. It facilitates cooperation, that is true, but there needs to be more clarification.

I understand from my hon. colleague that he is getting favourable responses from the provinces, and obviously we are off on a positive step. However, what he refers to takes place prior to the tabling of the bill, and I will touch on that in just a moment. The consultation process that my colleagues talk about in the Bloc as well as the NDP is an extremely contentious issue and one that needs further discussion, far greater than the scope of a committee that follows second reading.

Under the provisions of clauses 11 to 13, the federal government, through the minister, will be able to undertake programs and projects. The scope and range of these programs and projects are widely spread and imply that the federal government will be financially responsible for funding them both. Again, this is a matter which requires careful consideration.

Under the provisions of clause 14, “The Minister may”, and again I stress the word “may” “in order to carry out the purpose of this Act”, strike advisory panels. However, that discretion allows the minister not to strike panels as well. He may do in whatever case that he deems necessary. Therefore, the power, we would think, becomes far more stretched, far more varied, more wielding under the situation of “may”. For example, at the end of this day, I may jump off the House of Commons right into the lake, but I may not. The chances are I will not, but I may. So hon. members will get the point of--

[Loyola Hearn, Conservative, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Promise?

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

The hon. minister just asked if that was a promise. I will take that under advisement.

Clause 15, which again provides a minister with discretionary powers, says, “The Minister may, for the purpose of conducting research” obtain information from any person that the minister considers relevant to conservation, proper management and prevention of pollution of waters. Again, clarification is needed.

The apparent user fee structure in clauses 16 to 17 requires clarification with respect to fees charged for the service or the use of a facility.

There are many other sections in this and a lot of it deals with the first half of this bill. It troubles me greatly that so many people have contacted our office, and many offices of other members of Parliament and DFO, about their concerns on the bill. Again, the theme is very simple, questions, questions, questions. Remember, we are replacing an act that existed for 137 years. We have to ask the essential question. Was due diligence exercised? I do not think it was in this case. There were too many questions and too many people asking them.

Under clause 25, while the minister “must” take into account in exercising the powers the need to conserve the fishery while also securing access to the fishery. The question arises as to how these are prioritized. At the same time the minister may take into account matters such as adjacency and historical participation, which require careful consideration due to the matters arising out of, say, the Marshall decision, which took into account historical attachment and adjacency issues. Do these issues relate to the licence holder specifically or can adjacency and historical participation relate to the historical attachment of fishers from communities? What are we opening up? Again, this a question that needs verification. The law has to be translated for all stakeholders. The law has to be carefully vetted for all stakeholders. For communities, we have ourselves a new concept. Who does that include? We need to ask that question.

Also I will address clause 36. This very important. Clause 36 refers to aquaculture, a very simple little addition that definitely needs more clarification. Under “Leases”, it says, “The Minister may issue leases for aquaculture purposes”.

I am a proud member of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans now. It is a very non-partisan group that gets along very well and it has a great chair. However, if memory serves me correctly, and I was not a member of Parliament at the time, around 2003 the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans took the decision that aquaculture would have its own special unit, or at least the characteristics of its own special unit within the government. From my understanding, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans was a part of that committee in 2003.

[Bill Matthews, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

He was.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

I thank the member for Random—Burin—St. George's for clarifying that. He was also a member at the time.

If it says in clause 36 that the minister may issue releases for aquaculture purposes, where is the rest? If the minister truly believes, as he did in 2003, about the special rules and regulations around aquaculture and its effect on the environment and all fisheries and all stakeholders, why is it not addressed here? Again, that is another question.

Clause 37 refers to the allocation the minister can make in fisheries “not managed by a province”. The question here goes back to the provisions under clauses 7 and 23 with respect to delegation and whether it is possible that the federal minister, in the wake of agreements or a delegation, would actually have very few fisheries over which to have authority to allocate. Again, the government may have a good answer for that, but yet not vetted through the right people, the stakeholders, and not translated fully.

The provisions in the bill that deal with the tribunal is one that is extremely plausible. We find, for the most part, with a few minor changes, they are certainly acceptable to our country. Unfortunately, what we have here is an omnibus bill that covers everything. Clauses 130 to 133 concern the alternative measures to judicial proceedings. The only concern here is to ensure that those who violate the provisions of the act of a serious nature are dealt with in a manner befitting the degree of frequency of violations. Again, we go back to the tribunal aspect of this act, which we feel is a positive one, but yet the first part of the act with co-management is a major issue.

I would like to bring up a few concerns. The parliamentary secretary in his opening speech said that they consulted a lot of people, that they had a lot people give them feedback. Yesterday the minister said that it was mostly positive. I beg to differ. Herein lies some of the negative stuff. It is not only negative, but it raises questions as well. Everybody wants to know.

For example, Bill C-45 would change all that with clauses 43 to 46. This comes from the Fisherman Life submission by Christopher Harvey who has said that on the fisheries management agreements with any organization, which in his view represents a class of persons, the minister is left with an unfettered discretion. He has problems as well with clause 37, making allocations among any groups.

A letter to me stated, “We also have recently read an article in the Peninsula News about the Liberal caucus position on Bill C-45, and it mentioned you had concerns”.

The stakeholders across Canada are voicing disapproval with the bill.

The common theme here is lack of consultation. After second reading to go to committee is not the proper way to management. Therefore, I move the following amendment:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word 'That' and by substituting the following therefor:

Bill C-45, An Act respecting the sustainable development of Canada's sea coast and inland fisheries, be not now read a second time but that it be read a second time this day six months hence.

Let the stakeholders have their say.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

The amendment is in order. Questions and comments. Questions and comments. Debate.

The hon. member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine.

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. I do not mind speaking, as you are asking, but I would like to understand where we are at. I appreciate that an amendment was moved, but what is going on? Is the amendment in order or not? I would really like to speak to Bill C-45, but I would like to better understand where we are at.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member is asking a reasonable question. The member before you moved an amendment, and we are now having a debate on this amendment.

The hon. member has the floor, unless he wants to give it to the next speaker.

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. I do not know what I can say on this issue, but I would invite you to hear this.

I understand that an amendment has been moved. We can discuss it if the Speaker so desires. Once the amendment is disposed of, we normally expect to have a period of questions and comments following the Liberal member's speech. At the end of the normal 10-minute period of questions and comments, it is then my turn to speak to Bill C-45.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member is absolutely right, and this is why I asked, in both official languages and repeatedly, if there were questions and comments. No one rose. That is why I ask you to continue the debate, since you were next on the list. If you want to give your turn to someone else, I will proceed in that fashion.

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to take part in the question and comment period following the member's speech. I heard you ask if there were any questions on the amendment. I do not have questions on the amendment but I do have questions on the member's speech.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

Unfortunately, you should have answered when I invited members to make comments. We are now on debate and you have the floor to make your speech.

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, things should be a lot clearer as to what we are supposed to be doing because, now, there will not be a question and comment period with regard to the speech that the member just made.

I have no problem with having to make my speech now since I cannot question the Chair's decisions.

Regarding Bill C-45, first I would like to state two facts that could be considered anecdotal. What are we eating today in the lobby? Cod fillets. The question is this: where does that cod come from? Where was it harvested? Do you know that the answer to that question is likely to be in Russia or in Asia? That is also part of the situation. In this sense, Bill C-45 is far from addressing that particular problem.

The second element I would like to point out is simply that, in my opinion, Bill C-45 is an unfinished piece of work. We will have an opportunity to talk about this during the debate and also in committee. We will support the principle of the bill because it is indeed an unfinished piece of work. In this sense, I will say right now, as I mentioned earlier, that there is a serious problem with regard to consultation.

It is with great interest that I heard the proposal made by my Liberal colleague, who is a member of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, not to defer, but to suspend the work for six months, thus allowing for a much wider consultation than the one we have now. The evidence is found in the letter that I will read once again, perhaps a little more quietly. I want to take this opportunity because several parliamentarians and, particularly, I suppose, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, are here, since it is his bill that we are discussing today. I will send a copy. The minister has received a copy. This is about a statement made by the parliamentary secretary in relation to Bill C-45.

Having looked at this statement concerning Bill C-45 that was sent to us ... at the very last minute, even though it was known that we, the fishers, would not have time to read it and particularly to understand some wording that appears to have a double meaning, we wish to inform you that we have not been consulted at any time about any change that would affect the new fisheries act and that we categorically oppose any changes that might be made without our being able to discuss them with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

This letter is signed by Marc Couture, president of the Gaspé crab fishers association, and Daniel Desbois, president of the Bay crab fishers association.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Before I continue, would it be possible to have a little more quiet around me? I have a lot of difficulty concentrating. I hear the voices of everyone else more than my own. Some members have voices that are a little louder and that carry.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

Order, please.

As a courtesy to the hon. member and to all other members, would those who are having private conversations please have them in their respective lobbies so the Chair can hear the member who is speaking right now?

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, these may be fascinating conversations and I might eventually want to join in, but right now I would like the hon. members to be able to hear me and, and some members having louder voices than others, this can be disruptive.

Anyway, these people, these honest citizens, namely the crab fishers and their representatives, say and write that they have not been consulted. Should we believe them? I think so. They have not only said so; they have put it in writing. It is a very important issue, one that was raised as one of the main criticisms in our discussions with department officials about Bill C-45. If the consultations have not been carried out by the department, I pledge—hopefully the members of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans will be in agreement—that we will carry out these consultations. It is extremely important that the people in the fishing community, who are directly or indirectly affected by fisheries management, have the right and opportunity to express their opinions on every aspect of this bill.

It is true that the bill is coming to us 137 or 138 years after the existing law was enacted, because it has never been amended in all those years. Also, we have to say that, sadly, the fishing industry is grappling with a host of problems. I can only speak of Quebec, but in Quebec the fishing industry is in crisis, be it in the shrimp,crab, lobster or groundfish sectors, or the cod sector, of course. Another crisis nowadays is the one pitting those who would abolishing seal hunting against the seal hunters.

There is certainly no shortage of crises. When I say that there are crises galore, I am speaking only of Quebec. If I were to talk about the Atlantic provinces, there would be more crises and the problem would only grow bigger. A little further, if I turned to the Great Lakes, I would be talking about another crisis: invasive species. I could also talk about western Canada, where the issue of salmon fisheries in the Fraser River was under consideration for several months. That is yet another crisis.

The bill has arrived in Parliament but it is incomplete from several standpoints. The legislation in question does need to be brought up to date; it was enacted 138 years ago and it needs more teeth. Any offence committed in the fisheries ends up in criminal court. That is the reality: you go to court no matter how minor the offence. This can result in delays and problems. Thus, we can see the creation of an administrative tribunal as a positive step.

Yet, we must be vigilant and have a critical eye and, for this reason, the consultation period is extremely important. I think it is quite proper for people to have the time to review the bill in question in order to express an informed opinion. This would allow parliamentarians to conduct a debate, as we are doing today, and to work in the interests of those involved in the industry once the bill is referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.

Some people believe that the fisheries are not a big deal and that the issue only comes up on Fridays. I mention Fridays because there used to be a tradition that you ate fish only on that day.

In Canada, this is a $4 billion industry that generates a great deal of revenue in each community. I would like to speak about the Quebec fisheries and everything happening east of Quebec City. But I will speak primarily about the region I am most familiar with, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine

Let us try to figure out the significance of “the fisheries”. The population of the Magdalen Islands is 14,000. In my opinion, we have to respect these people. Of these 14,000 people, 6 out of 10 depend on the fishing industry. It is that clear cut.

In the Gaspé, a little more than 3 people in 10 have fishery related employment. In Quebec, the landed value of the fishery is $150 million. This may not seem like much compared to other figures, but when you consider the overall figures, you realize that thousands of people depend on them.

I am talking just about the landed value of the fish. For regions like ours, it is extremely important. That is why we must look at the fishery from this angle.

In my opinion, it would be proper and respectful toward this population, the fishers, the industries, the people who work in the plants in question and the communities to take the necessary time to look at how changes are made. It is true that there are a number of changes in the bill.

One of the changes that absolutely needs to be made involves the discretionary power of the minister. I have nothing against the person in that position. That is not what I am saying.

Nonetheless, giving the minister full discretionary power over managing the fisheries does not allow us, in my opinion, to go further. Unfortunately, over the past year some questionable decisions, to say the least, have been made. We have spoken out against these decisions.

They say there is a crisis in the shrimp fishery. There are too many shrimp on the market: we are being “invaded” and “attacked” by farmed shrimp. However, the current minister announced an increase in the fished shrimp quota in the gulf areas. But who is benefiting? The fishers in Newfoundland and Labrador are benefiting.

I have nothing against Newfoundland and Labrador. I have no problem with this. However, as far as management is concerned, I do not get the impression that increasing quotas to benefit a certain group is responsible resource management when shrimp ... when the shrimp industry is in crisis. It is not the shrimp that are in crisis. On the contrary, Nordic shrimp are delicious.

Magdalen Island lobster fishers also experienced this adversarial situation with Prince Edward Island lobster fishers.

There again, an arbitrary decision was made by the ministers, supposedly based on a report from a mediator. This mediator was rejected by one of the parties, the Magdalen Islands.

So much for efficiency and effectiveness. That is what the people of the Magdalen Islands said. Anyone who thinks I am wrong about what the people of the Magdalen Islands said should take the time to go and see the islanders.

I repeat: the fishers from the Magdalen Islands said that consultations were held and a mediator was appointed without their consent. I believe what the fishers from the Magdalen Islands say. Anyone who claims otherwise is calling the fishers liars. That is a fact.

Parliamentarians must act responsibly. The Bloc Québécois is committed to doing so, and I am as well. We did so recently when the revocation of legislation concerning the Great Lakes fisheries was being reviewed. In my opinion, the Bloc Québécois acted responsibly on this issue.

Strangely, during the process, it was noticed that the Conservatives, who had introduced the section in question, had voted against that section by mistake. Mistakes happen, certainly. If it had not been for the Bloc Québécois, the whole thing might have fallen through.

The people of the Great Lakes might have found themselves in a legal vacuum. That is why I am calling on all members to work together. At the same time, I am well aware that we will have a great deal of work to do. We will do it responsibly and thoroughly. When the committee receives Bill C-45, if the House so desires, the committee will have to proceed thoroughly and responsibly, taking the time not only to consult, but also to make any amendments it considers appropriate.

It is not just a matter of time, it is also a matter of respect for the industry, fishers, communities and everyone directly or indirectly involved in the fisheries. A number of amendments will be made to this bill, which I feel is a work in progress. I believe that some parts will have to be removed and that we will have to agree on some others. I cannot agree with one of the objectives of Bill C-45, which provides that the department can use the resource to fund its research work. What have we come to? I understand that the resource is public, but it should benefit the people who fish it and live off it. A bill should not make it possible to do indirectly something that we would not want to see done directly: using this money to fund research. If, after 138 years, this is the sort of change that is being proposed, we will have to go back to the drawing board. We will defend this principle tooth and nail. There are others we could elaborate on.

I just want to summarize what I was saying, but I know that I will have an opportunity to come back to this over the course of the debate and possibly in committee if the House chooses that route.

Bill C-45 enhances the co-management of the fish populations by giving fishers more power and more responsibility. It also creates a new tribunal that will have the authority to punish poachers by imposing penalties ranging from fines to revoking fishing permits.

I want to remind hon. members that under the current system, even the most insignificant offences are referred to a criminal court, which can involve a lengthy and costly process.

In addition to having at its disposal an entire arsenal of penalties, this tribunal will consist of individuals who have a good understanding of the fishing industry, and vigilance will be the order of the day.

The bill finally recognizes that some legislation in Quebec and the provinces is equal or superior, and it thereby cuts down on duplication. On that matter, the Bloc Québécois, as a sovereignist party, has another objective. As an aside, if there ever were a sector of the economy in Quebec that could attest to the fact that if we were sovereign we would be better off, it would certainly be the fishery sector.

I know that some people do not necessarily agree with me, but that is the broad consensus in Quebec. We will eventually see this, during a referendum. The fisheries file perfectly illustrates why Quebec needs sovereignty. And, as they say, the sceptics will be confounded.

However, as for the negative points of the bill, obviously, the issue of consultation has been mentioned. In a way, the proposed amendment is relatively interesting. I know that the committee will also work very hard, and respectfully, but above all, very thoroughly. That is how it is done.

I know that the current minister was on the committee. Now he is the minister, wearing a new hat, one might say. I know he worked actively within the committee, just as I did. We face several challenges. Of course, the various crises bear witness to that.

I must also mention that, recently, for example, the sale of licences from one province to the next created the following risk: a crab boat was sold to a P.E.I. business, without a history of a crab quota, meaning that 25 jobs per boat left our region, not including the jobs linked to the plant. This is dangerous. This is what it means for jobs on the boats and in the plants. This is dangerous.

Does the bill address the situation? I do not think so. Should it address the situation? In my opinion, yes, absolutely. Of course, there was a reaction. We found a way to say that perhaps the licence could be attributed to P.E.I. or elsewhere, but not the attached quota. That may be a way to slow things down, but it will not completely prevent such situations.

I will have the opportunity to come back to this over the course of the next few hours or, if necessary, in the weeks and months to come, with the ultimate goal of improving the lives of these people who depend on this industry and who—

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

The member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from the Bloc, who obviously has an interest in the bill. It is really worth pointing out that this bill has not been redone or reconstructed in 139 years. Contrary to the amendment by my good friend and colleague from Bonavista--Gander--Grand Falls--Windsor, I have to ask my colleague from the Bloc, since he did state that he agrees with the bill in principle, if he would not agree with me that if we extend this for another six months, as the amendment calls for, time will go by and they will want another delay.

Then, the next thing we know, we will have been waiting 149 years. I wonder if my colleague from the Bloc would support me in asking my colleague from Gander to withdraw his amendment and get on with this. I also must say that our minister has drafted a great bill. I think even my minister would agree with me that no bill is ever perfect, but I think this is a good bill. I am sure that the minister is open on this from time to time.

However, delaying it is not the way to go. Let us get started with something that appears to me to be a very good bill. Fisheries is big in my riding, as it obviously is to that gentleman over there, and I can appreciate that. I would like to hear his comments.

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would very much like to thank my Conservative colleague for his question. I would say that we should not exaggerate. Although I do not know the member in question, I think he has exaggerated somewhat.

The amendment submitted will be scrutinized and analyzed on its merits. However, the letter that I presented at the outset, signed by the citizens of my riding who represent a number of fishers in my riding, should be retained in principle. They feel that the bill could be improved and that is why they say yes. However, they are quite shocked because they feel they were not consulted. Therefore, it is important to take the time to analyze the situation.

I am in favour of the proposal or the proposed amendment . However, I will take the time to analyze it because I believe we must act rigorously and responsibly in this matter.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Sackville—Eastern Shore should know that there is less than a minute for both the question and the answer.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member's colleague, the member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, for the great work he did on the new ombudsman bill for veterans in Canada.

I have a question for my hon. colleague, for whom I have great respect and who represents a fantastic area of the country. The motion put forward by our colleague from the Liberal Party basically asks that people in his constituency, the people he just spoke about, have the opportunity to give their input prior to second reading. We have asked the minister too. We need more time so that these people across the country and in the member's riding can have that input.

I thank him very much for saying that he will carefully look at the amendment and consider it in due time.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

The member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine must know that his time has expired, but I will give him a moment to answer.

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, a moment can be short or long.

In conclusion, members of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans have always acted responsibly and will continue to do so to protect the industry from—

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

I am sorry but time has expired. When Bill C-45 comes back for debate in the House, there will be five minutes left for questions and comments with regard to the speech made by the member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine.

It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.