Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I just want to add to the discussion in a way that I hope will provide some suggestion for clarifying the scope of what we are attempting to do and perhaps address some of the reasonable concerns from across the aisle.
This is a complex project. It has a lot of aspects for the economic well-being of the local communities, but it also has concerns around the environmental aspects, as the panel has concluded.
My understanding about the motion is that it is really focused on the fisheries and fish habitat issues. So when we are thinking about who might come forward to spend two hours with our committee so that we can judge whether a further study is necessary, I would propose that the study would be around the fish and fish habitat issues and not try to duplicate a panel that had dozens of hearings across 30 days in British Columbia.
We are not trying to duplicate that work. What we're trying to ascertain is whether there are concerns about our responsibilities with respect to understanding and providing feedback towards the effective governance of the Fisheries Act by DFO or whether there are concerns about the adequacy of the research on the fish and fish habitat and concerns about the capacity of DFO to have been part of the panel and to have been as effective as possible in presenting the science and the case around fish and fish habitat.
I would propose that the scope of this meeting really be linked to fish and fish habitat. I'm not sure that the mayor of Williams Lake, who has very relevant and important things to say about the economy of Williams Lake and the local area, would be a necessary input into two hours of hearing about the fish and fish habitat processes, resources, research results, concerns, and how it fits into the decision the cabinet will be making.
On the other hand, the first nations are very involved in fish and fish habitat. The first nations in this area, it's my understanding, are among the very few groups that were never assigned a reserve area that would be a small part of their claimed traditional territory; they actually still fully occupy their traditional claim territory, and while they have numerous economic involvements with the local economy, a strong part of their internal band economy is hunting and fishing and a dependence on the resources of the land. So this is a group that has been there for hundreds of years and will have something to contribute on the issues of fish and fish habitat. And there may be other groups besides the minister, the department, and first nations that have been discussed.
My proposal is that in determining who would come to that first hearing, that would be the criteria: can they contribute to that? To do a further study, we would determine whether there are gaps in what's been brought forward, how and with what resources, to really do justice to our responsibility around fish and fish habitat.
Thank you.