Evidence of meeting #102 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 42nd 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
The Chair Liberal Bernadette Jordan
Next is CPC-4. If CPC-4 is adopted, CPC-5 cannot be moved as there is a line conflict.
Mr. Arnold.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Madam Chair, we bring this amendment forward so that the “knowledge of fish harvesters” would also be included in the minister's decision-making process. I think that should be a fairly straightforward inclusion in any of his decisions regarding the Fisheries Act.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
I will withdraw this amendment.
(Clause 3 as amended agreed to)
(On clause 4)
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Madam Chair, I'd like to bring forward this amendment that the advisory panel established by the minister must include representatives of the fishing industry. Without their inclusion in the discussions, I believe they would be left out of the process that is so important to their livelihoods and the communities that they work in.
NDP
Fin Donnelly NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC
Madam Chair, I'm wondering if we could ask our departmental officials what their concern would be or if they would be in favour of this addition.
Liberal
Mark Waddell Director General, Fisheries and Licence Policy, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Madam Chair, it might be the intent the advisory process would not be to enumerate specifically who's going to be a participant on the board but the current intent of the amendment, the wording we have, is to allow the minister to select representation as necessary, be it from indigenous communities, local communities, ENGOs, fishing industry representatives, and the like.
NDP
Fin Donnelly NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC
What would be the downside to including this by adding that specificity?
Director General, Ecosystems Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
If I may, the advisory panels can be related to any subject matter under the Fisheries Act with respect to conservation, so it is not just limited to issues related to fisheries. By forcing having a fisheries organization on such a committee, it may not be the right fit for the purpose of that advisory committee.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
To the officials, is there anything elsewhere that suggests the rationale for appointing people to an advisory committee? To come to a fine point, it would not be good if the advisory committees were somehow stacked to lead to a predetermined outcome.
Director General, Ecosystems Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
The main objective of the advisory committee is to ensure that there are experts available to provide advice to the minister, and so, depending on the subject of the advisory committee, it would be the minister who would determine what the appropriate level of expertise would be, but it would then be selected through a transparent process. My point is that it depends on the nature of what they are advising the minister on. That is one issue. The second is that to focus on one sector or one group without identifying others does imbalance the section with respect to who should be on a committee.
Liberal
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Madam Chair, would any panel be set up regarding the fisheries that wouldn't affect fishers, whether commercial fishermen or recreational fishermen? Basically all fisheries impact fisher people, so I believe they should be included. I believe Mr. Miller may have a subamendment he would like to propose.
Conservative
Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
Madam Chair, I don't have any problem with it the way it is, but I'm getting the feeling that some do, and I'm going to propose a subamendment. It reads:
(1.1) The members of an advisory panel must consider representatives of the fishing industry.
It would basically remove the word “include” and put in “consider”. I think that would address Mr. Winfield's comment about the situations where it may not fit.
Liberal
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
The subamendment would have the advisory panel considering representatives, but the advisory panel doesn't do that. It would be the minister, I believe.
Conservative
Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
Are you saying that the initial amendment wasn't worded to allow it?
I'm just dealing with what's in front of me, Ken.