Thank you, Mr. Allen.
Evidence of meeting #26 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 40th Parliament, 3rd session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #26 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 40th Parliament, 3rd session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Mike Allen Conservative Tobique—Mactaquac, NB
I'm prepared with two subamendments, depending on where the discussion goes with the committee.
Conservative
Devinder Shory Conservative Calgary Northeast, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
That's what I wanted to say, so I'll pass it on this time.
Liberal
Rodger Cuzner Liberal Cape Breton—Canso, NS
Thank you once again, Mr. Chair.
What Mike has said is what I've said from the beginning, even when we kicked this around during our initial meeting as a committee. We don't want to get into going through a complete assessment.
I think it would be of benefit to bring in the first nations, if they feel they have been shortchanged on the consultation process or due diligence hasn't been respected through this process. If they want to come in and maybe make that case up front--bring forward the officials to backfill us on that--I have no problem with that. I don't want to be doing the business of the subcommittee as well.
Just for clarification, was the EA on this a full panel review or a comprehensive study?
Conservative
Liberal
Rodger Cuzner Liberal Cape Breton—Canso, NS
So if we had one representative come in and represent the panel on this too....
I agree with Mike that we want to focus on DFO's role and whether or not they had the adequate number of tools, if they had the resources to their avail, and if they used those resources to put forward an opinion to this body. I don't disagree with that, but I think we should be able to do this within the two hours. To that end, maybe we should call the question on the amendment.
NDP
Fin Donnelly NDP New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I support Monsieur Blais' amendment, and I appreciate him bringing forward the motion to put a finer point on its intent.
I appreciate Ms. Murray's comments. I think they have helped focus and clarify the intent of the motion as well.
Mr. Cuzner, your comments regarding Mr. Allen...having a DFO official in there commenting on their participation is quite fine, but I would like the motion to include hearing from the first nations. If the committee wants to include others in this two-hour hearing, I'm fine with that, as long as we give them adequate time, as we do to all delegations.
Thank you.
Conservative
Randy Kamp Conservative Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC
We have an amendment on the floor, and I've heard some suggestions for other amendments, and amendments to the amendment. Just for the record, it still makes no sense to us to hear from one group and not others and think that somehow having heard from just that one stakeholder group and DFO officials and...for example, if the first nations group thinks they are somehow—I don't know what they think, but if they should think, for example, that they weren't engaged well enough in the process in the panel review...the panel review is under the auspices of the Minister of the Environment. Maybe that committee should be looking at the process of the panel review.
I just think we will regret...because this is a public meeting, and I think you'll see that there are many other people, many other stakeholders, who are taking an interest in this, and not just that first nations group that happened to talk to Mr. Donnelly. We will get requests, I would think, from many other groups. If we're willing to say, well, just two hours and we thought we'd have the DFO officials and the first nations because they got their ask in first through one of our members—I mean, I assume they've made it; I haven't seen any correspondence from them or anything else.
I just think we're opening a huge can of worms. That's why we're having trouble. I like limiting it to two hours, but then if at the two hours we then say that—you know, I don't know who should decide. That's why we could amend this amendment just to say that the scope of those two hours is being determined by the subcommittee. At least then we'd be able to discuss this again in another setting to see just how we best use those two hours.
So I would propose an amendment to the amendment to say that....
Conservative
Mike Allen Conservative Tobique—Mactaquac, NB
He's deferring to me that the amendment be amended to read that after a two-hour hearing the scope and witnesses be decided by the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure. Mr. Donnelly pointed out very well that maybe there are other witnesses we would like to propose, and we all want an even time, so that two hours is going to start getting down to one minute, two minutes per person based on the stakeholder groups.
Conservative
John Weston Conservative West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC
There is the amendment and the proposed subamendment.
Conservative
John Weston Conservative West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC
Can you read the motion in its entirety, please?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rodney Weston
The motion? No, you're just going to vote on the subamendment. There's been a subamendment proposed. We deal with a subamendment, and if it passes, then we deal with the amended amendment.
October 19th, 2010 / 10:20 a.m.
Conservative
John Weston Conservative West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC
I would still appreciate it if we could hear the—
Conservative
John Weston Conservative West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC
—motion proposed by Mr. Donnelly.
Conservative
Conservative
John Weston Conservative West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC
It's a bad day for a chair.