Evidence of meeting #40 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 habitat.
A video is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Robert Sopuck
I call the meeting to order.
There's a quick bit of committee business just before we start. I've been advised by our clerk that the legislative and regulatory affairs division of the department has said that they could provide all the online consultations to us in English only today, and the translations, if we want them, on December 9. I will ask the committee for unanimous consent to receive the information in English only today.
Mr. Donnelly.
NDP
Fin Donnelly NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC
Again, we had this discussion at the last committee meeting and I think it was quite clear that we're looking for the information in both official languages, so hopefully, that's coming on December 9. That's certainly what I will be recommending.
Liberal
Pat Finnigan Liberal Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB
If I may, Mr. Chair, I'd like to ask that we wait until Friday. Everybody was sent a notice from DFO, and I think, if everybody consents, we give them until Friday to supply both official languages to this committee.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Robert Sopuck
Okay.
We needed unanimous consent and we didn't get it, so that's fine.
Conservative
Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
We had one question from Mr. Donnelly about clarification.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Mr. Chair, before we get into our witnesses' testimony today, I would like to propose a motion. I'll give a bit of a preamble.
The committee's current review of the Fisheries Act is based on a motion passed by the committee mandating this study. Marine protected areas are the government's tool for protecting fish habitat, and so on. Today's meeting is the last meeting of witness testimony on the Fisheries Act review, and the next meetings are slated to begin the drafting of the act.
Mr. LeBlanc's mandate letter has mandated him to increase the portion of Canada's marine and coastal areas to be protected to 5% in 2017, and then 10% by 2020. The committee knows that the development of MPAs is under way, and it would be appropriate and helpful for the committee to determine the next task as a work plan in 2017 by passing this motion.
The motion would be that the committee undertake a study examining the criteria and process being used to identify and establish marine protected areas, with the objective of ensuring that the criteria and processes are aligned to (a) achieve the intended benefits of MPAs; (b) assess the social, economic, and environmental impacts of MPAs; and (c) that all traditional uses and values are duly considered and respected in the criteria and process of identifying and establishing MPAs.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Robert Sopuck
That motion appears to be in order. Is the motion in English and in French?
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Robert Sopuck
Then we can't distribute it to members.
You're providing notice of this motion right now.
Conservative
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Robert Sopuck
Typically we need 48 hours' notice to move a motion, unless it is directly related to the business before the committee. I'm not sure this is directly related to the business before our committee, because we're reviewing the Fisheries Act.
Mr. Arnold.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Mr. Chair, I believe the two are interrelated, so it may be appropriate that this be introduced at this stage, but I welcome others' input.
Conservative
Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
Mr. Chair, with all due respect, we have heard testimony from witnesses throughout our fisheries study. We've had the minister as well. The Minister of Transport and Minister of Fisheries and Oceans have talked about the government's marine protection plan, which they'll be introducing very shortly, in the coming days, weeks, or months, and I think it is incumbent on this committee, if we are going to be truly doing work that is meaningful, that we consider this, moving forward.
We know there are potentially some announcements coming down either prior to Christmas or in the new year. I think it would be incumbent on this group to study MPAs specifically—west coast, east coast, and all areas; these have an economic impact on all of our areas. I think this committee again should look at what the criteria are and what the study is—what Mr. Arnold is putting forth.
Liberal
Bernadette Jordan Liberal South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
Mr. Chair, my concern with respect to Mr. Arnold's motion is that I see this as a totally different study, not something related specifically to this one. I therefore would suggest that it get the 48-hour notice treatment and not be moved today.
This is a totally different thing. Although we've heard about marine protected areas in the testimony we've heard over the last few weeks, I don't think that the motion is something related specifically to this study.
NDP
Fin Donnelly NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC
Mr. Chair, I agree. I think this is something worthy that we should absolutely look at, but that is absolutely a different study from the Fisheries Act study.
This is rather an unusual process, because normally we talk about priorities and next studies at subcommittee and then make the recommendation to the main committee.
Conservative
Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
I hear all of the discussion points that our colleagues are mentioning, but as I entered into this committee in early fall, this committee already had two studies under way, the northern cod study and the Atlantic salmon study. But pursuant to a letter drafted to this committee by both the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard instructing the committee to review the Fisheries Act and giving a specific time frame, this committee at that time...and if you remember, at the very first meeting I suggested that perhaps we should get our priorities in place.
We have three studies under way. This study of marine protected areas, I think, is a valuable endeavour for us to move forward with. It's something that we could do fairly easily.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
I was just going to suggest we call the question. If you're looking for unanimous consent to deal with it now, we should just call that question.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Robert Sopuck
I've heard the arguments and I will make a ruling based primarily on a technicality.
What this motion is requesting is a study. I agree with Mr. Donnelly that doing studies is something our subcommittee always discusses, and then the committee discusses it as a whole. Largely because the word “study” is in the motion, which is requesting a study, my ruling is that this will require 48 hours' notice.
That's not a comment on the substance of the motion whatsoever.
Mr. Donnelly.