44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 3, 2022 10:00AM
- May/3/22 10:05:34 a.m.
- Watch
moved that the third report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, presented on Monday, February 28, 2022, be concurred in.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in the House to speak on behalf of the hard-working people of South Shore—St. Margarets, including over 7,000 fishermen. I rise to speak in response to the concurrence motion before us in consideration of the third report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.
This report, when originally tabled in Parliament in the first session of the 42nd Parliament in June 2019, was entitled “Aquatic Invasive Species: A National Priority”. It is very good reading if members have not had a chance to read it. I hope all members have. This excellent unanimous report has been ignored by the government and that is why we are debating it today.
Like all of its other virtue-signalling initiatives, the government claims that it is protecting the biodiversity and health of our oceans and freshwater resources. The Liberals talk the talk, but they do not seem to ever deliver. The government has not developed a single response to this study, so let us take a look at the report and the government's record on these issues.
Aquatic invasive species, for those who do not know, are invertebrates or plant species that have been introduced into an aquatic environment outside their natural range. In other words, they have come here to Canada from some other part of the world and are not natural to our oceans or fresh waters. Once introduced, aquatic invasive species populations can grow, and can grow quite quickly, because they do not have any natural environmental predators or things that would prevent them from multiplying. As a result, they can out-compete our native plant species and our native freshwater species, consuming resources and taking over the biodiversity of waterways.
They can even alter habitats and make them inhospitable for our native species. That is particularly concerning when we have a number of species at risk in both freshwater and saltwater bodies. They are put in further jeopardy by the introduction of aquatic invasive species, plants and invertebrates.
The Minister of Fisheries has the responsibility under the Fisheries Act to protect fish and fish habitats. Canada has also signed international agreements on aquatic invasive species, including the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, signed by the Brian Mulroney government in 1992, when I was a senior adviser to the then foreign minister, the hon. Barbara McDougall, who was the member of Parliament for St. Paul's. It was also signed by the then environment minister, the hon. Jean Charest. John Crosbie was Canada's fisheries minister at the time, so there was a very powerful trio of senior ministers committed to this international convention.
In 2019, though, Canada's commissioner of the environment and sustainable development published an audit on the government's performance of the aquatic invasive species area. The audit concluded that DFO “did not determine which aquatic invasive species and pathways posed the greatest risks to Canada” in our system, and “did not systematically collect or maintain information to track [them].”
What has happened since then? The former minister of fisheries was defeated in South Shore—St. Margarets in 2021, and the current suburban Vancouver Minister of Fisheries, with no commercial fisheries in her riding, has done absolutely nothing to respond to the recommendations of the commissioner of the environment and those of the standing committee.
As for the government's claims, we are finding at the fisheries committee somewhat fake claims of listening to the science and DFO. The commissioner of the environment stated that when DFO “developed the 2015 Aquatic Invasive Species Regulations, it did not always use science-based information”. I know that would probably be a shock to many members, but those who have studied the area know that DFO was using science less and less in its decision-making. Why would we expect the government to actually live up to its promises when it never has in the past?
Another example is the legal partnership with the United States to prevent the spread of aquatic invasive species in the Great Lakes, among other important priorities. Through the bilateral treaty with the United States, both countries are financially obligated to support the Great Lakes Fishery Commission. Canada provides 31% of the funds for the commission, primarily aimed at dealing with sea lampreys and zebra mussels, and the United States provides 69%. Sea lampreys, in case members do not know, are an invasive species in the Great Lakes. They are essentially little eel-like vampires that latch onto a fish and drain the blood out of the fish and kill it.
The Liberal government budget in 2017, four years ago, allocated $43.8 million over five years, supposedly of new money, to support the Great Lakes Fishery Commission in the fight against sea lampreys. While DFO may have received the money, DFO must have diverted it to something else. I am sure when finance puts it in the budget, the money goes to DFO, but DFO ended up paying only half the annual cost for invasive species in the Great Lakes. The U.S. has had to pick up the tab for the remainder. However, the U.S. is fed up with being DFO's patsy, and the deadbeat government is not paying its international bills for the program. It got so bad that the U.S. Congress this year threatened to not only withhold payment of this year's allocation, but also not pay the Canadian side's bills. This means sea-lamprey prevention would disappear this year and the sea lampreys would become a greater threat to our fisheries in the Great Lakes.
I raised this two months with Minister of Fisheries in committee to try to get her to commit to paying the bills. When I told the minister the best way to deal with sea lampreys was to pay our bills, she sort of mumbled “yes”. Now in 2022 we hear, “It's déjà vu all over again”, to quote Yogi Berra. The government, under pressure from the official opposition, has now committed $48 million over the next five years to support the sea lamprey program and the Great Lakes Fishery Commission. However, what we know from the past is that—
1088 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/3/22 6:30:41 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to stand again to speak to the critical issues surrounding support for a just transition for workers in Canada's fisheries. Over the past year, we have seen the devastating impacts of the climate emergency. In my home of British Columbia, in just the past year we have seen a devastating heat dome, wildfires and flooding. The waters keep warming, and the impacts on our communities are increasingly severe. These are all terrible reminders that, both in Canada and around the world, we have failed to act to prevent the climate emergency.
It is vital that alongside bold emissions reduction targets, we set out to build a more sustainable economy for the future. Creating a viable fishery that prioritizes the conservation of our marine ecosystems is a key pillar of this plan.
This is all the more important because we have seen such drastic declines in the fish populations and consistent failures by consecutive Liberal and Conservative governments to protect our marine ecosystems and successfully rebuild stocks. Last year, almost 60% of British Columbia's salmon fisheries were closed as part of the Pacific salmon strategy initiative, also known as the PSSI, to try to help protect incredibly depleted stocks.
While the program includes a voluntary licence buyback program, it falls short of the robust transition supports individuals in the industry require.
In order to move forward, first nations, fishers, local organizations and coastal communities are asking the federal government to work more collaboratively. Those on the water and along our coasts understand best what is happening. They need to be part of the plan.
There are examples we can turn to. Forestry and agriculture workers in British Columbia, for example, saw a dedicated transition plan and financial supports from the B.C. NDP. These are the types of proactive solutions we need to see in the fishing sector to ensure that workers have a future as our economy continues to shift. All workers deserve assurance that they will not be left behind.
UFAWU-Unifor president James Lawson said it well when he remarked:
While our pleas for support...for displaced fish harvesters continue to go unanswered, forestry and agriculture workers are being rescued by exactly the kind of funding programs our Industry so desperately needs.
We know that fishers have ample transferable skills to take on related work including marine transport, coastal and marine tourism and countless other careers. It is time for the government to implement a clear plan that supports all those impacted, including those who are looking to start a new career or to retire with dignity.
This year's budget makes it clear that the protection and prioritization of our marine environment, coastal communities and all those impacted are an afterthought for the government.
It is also worth highlighting that in the almost 13 months since the PSSI was announced, we still have not seen any plan to rebuild wild salmon stocks. It is not good enough just to close our commercial fisheries and hope that fish populations bounce back.
Fishers, coastal communities and all Canadians want to believe that there is a bright future for Canada's marine ecosystems and our fishing sector, but that future is not possible until key funding commitments and a plan are delivered. The longer we wait, the more dire the situation will get and marine ecosystems, coastal communities and fishers' livelihoods will be lost to government mismanagement.
People are desperate to know: When will the government deliver a real plan that supports all those in the fishing sector, first nations, coastal communities and our marine environment?
604 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/3/22 6:34:48 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the question from the member. I serve on the fisheries committee with her and have a great deal of respect for her.
Our department is focused on improving the status of some of Canada's most important fish stocks to allow them to regenerate to provide sustainable fishing opportunities now and for years to come. The department takes a science-based approach to fisheries management. Science advice continues to indicate that some fish stocks are indeed in trouble, and some have been in trouble quite some time despite progressive management measures employed to date.
To support these difficult fisheries management decisions, my department has policies in place that guide management responses to changes in the status of fish stocks. The precautionary framework prescribes rebuilding plans for depleted stocks and also indicates that any harvest of fish from a depleted stock must be kept as low as possible to allow the stock the chance to recover. Rebuilding plans developed with indigenous groups and other fish stakeholders are a key tool to promote the growth of depleted stocks so they can come back to the abundant levels that they need to be.
I recognize that fishing restrictions aimed at rebuilding fish stocks can have an economic impact during the rebuilding period. However, more significant impacts can result from delaying action or not taking sufficient action to promote the rebuilding of stocks. Healthy fish stocks support resilient ecosystems while improving the potential for economic returns in the long term. The protection and regeneration of our natural environment, particularly in the face of biodiversity loss and accelerated climate change, will be critical for the economic vitality of our fisheries.
Commercial fishing is incredibly important to the local economies of Canada's coastal regions, like mine and like the member's, and to the well-being of indigenous and non-indigenous communities throughout this country. That is why we are working closely with stakeholders and communities in making decisions with regard to the protection of the resource.
I am conscious of the fact that predictability is important for those who make their living from Canada's fisheries. Through advisory board processes, those who depend on the resource are engaged and informed regarding the potential impacts to stocks and regarding access to the very resource we are talking about today. The common goal of supporting the long-term health of the industry underpins these discussions.
It is important to recognize that Canada's fishing industry has faced many challenges over many decades by the nature of the dependence on a natural resource. Changes in access to the resource to support both environmental and socio-economic objectives are not unprecedented. It is because of this that the department has supported the industry by adopting mitigation measures to better adapt to such changes. For example, most fishery licence-holders in Canada have access to multiple species that allow for diversification and avoid dependence on one particular fishery. Through setting the legislative and regulatory environment to support industry through adjustment periods and ensuring regular communication on science-based decisions, the department provides the necessary conditions for continued economic vitality and viability in Canada's fishing industry.
In closing, in addition to working with Canada on a specific fisheries management decision, my department is taking a lead role in actively exploring and facilitating a transition to the future blue economy. Throughout the previous year, the department conducted numerous ministerial round tables and engagement processes to hear from Canadians, particularly in the fisheries and oceans sectors, with regard to the challenges that all of us may be facing with the responsible growth of the sector.
A comprehensive blue economy strategy will outline the vision for our ocean-related sectors and help guide future government action that will enable long-term growth. As a government, we are super committed to science-based decision-making. It will ensure that fishing opportunities are sustainable now and for future generations of fishers.
663 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/3/22 6:39:52 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, our department is focused on improving the status of some of Canada's most important fish stocks. Again, I recognize that fishing restrictions aimed at rebuilding fish stocks can have an economic impact during the rebuilding period. I have seen it in my own community.
However, more significant impacts can result from delaying action, as I mentioned, or not taking sufficient action to promote the rebuilding of stocks. Commercial fishing is incredibly important to so many coastal communities, if not all communities that have a fishery. That is why we are working closely with our stakeholders and communities at making decisions that protect this resource though things, as I mentioned earlier, such as board processes. Those that depend on the resource are engaged and informed on potential changes to certain stocks or access to the resource.
As a government, we are committed to science-based decision-making. We are working to ensure the fishery opportunities are sustainable for future generations to come, and I look forward to working with the member to achieve those agendas.
177 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
