Evidence of meeting #2 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 43rd Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Jaime Battiste Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS
Good morning, Mr. Chair, and colleagues.
I would like to make a motion if that's possible at this time.
I move:
That the committee undertake a study of at least three meetings to investigate and consider options to address the supply and shortage of herring bait in Atlantic Canada and to explore new options for bait such as Asian carp as a replacement for the depleting herring stocks.
I believe notice was given.
Liberal
Bobby Morrissey Liberal Egmont, PE
The amendment is that the committee undertake a study of at least three meetings to investigate the state of the Atlantic Canada herring stocks and hear from department officials plans to rebuild these herring stocks, and the committee investigate and consider options to address.... The rest of the motion remains the same.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
Do you have that written down anywhere, so I can read it out in its entirety?
Liberal
Bobby Morrissey Liberal Egmont, PE
Do you want me to read it again?
The original motion is, “That the committee undertake a study of at least three meetings to investigate and consider options to address the supply and shortage of herring bait in Atlantic Canada”.
The amendment would read, “That the committee undertake a study of at least three meetings to investigate the state of the Atlantic Canada herring stocks and hear from department officials plans to rebuild these herring stocks, and that the committee investigate and consider options to address the supply and shortage of herring bait in Atlantic Canada and to explore new options for bait such as Asian carp as a replacement for the depleting herring stocks, and report back to the House.”
Liberal
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
I'm going to seek clarification as to whether that amendment is in order, because it seems in my opinion to broaden exponentially the scope of the original motion tabled by Mr. Battiste and, as a result, would not qualify for the notice period that would likely need to be given or required most of the time when a motion of this significance is being proposed.
I would look for a ruling from you as to whether the amendment is actually in order.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
It does widen the scope of the original motion, so in order to amend it to that degree or to change it like that, it has to have the consent of the committee.
Do we have the consent of the committee to...?
Mr. Cormier.
Liberal
Serge Cormier Liberal Acadie—Bathurst, NB
I want to talk about the motion as it stands. You said that we would broaden the study. However, the motion tabled concerned the supply issue related to the depleting herring stocks, which is resulting in a shortage of bait. We know that fishers use that bait a great deal. We can't study the herring supply issue and the impact of the shortage of bait if we don't further study the depleting herring stocks. We must study both these areas to obtain a somewhat more detailed report. We must know the condition of the stock and its impact on the bait supply.
The depleting herring stock is having a major impact on fishers, who need a herring supply. We must try to find other species. That's why we moved this amendment. We wanted a more complete picture of how the herring supply issue affects fishers.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
The amendment does widen the scope, even though we're in committee business so it would have to come back as a separate motion, or Mr. Battiste could withdraw his original motion if he wanted to and the committee members could come back with a motion at their earliest convenience.
Liberal
Jaime Battiste Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS
If it makes sense, Mr. Chair, I'll just ask this. If I withdraw that motion and then make the motion as amended, put it forward, does that satisfy the committee?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
You can do that, but in order to withdraw, you need the majority of the committee to consent that you can withdraw the original motion. Is it your wish to withdraw the original motion?
Liberal
February 25th, 2020 / 9:15 a.m.
Liberal
Jaime Battiste Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS
This is why I read it as planned and not as amended. It is terribly written, but let me give this a shot.
I move that the committee undertake a study of at least three meetings to investigate the state of the Atlantic Canada herring stocks and hear from the department officials plans to rebuild these herring stocks, and that the committee investigate and consider options to address the supply and shortage of herring bait in Atlantic Canada and to explore new options for bait such as Asian carp as a replacement for the depleting herring stocks, and report back to the House.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
I presume that either you or someone else is going to put that in legible writing so the clerk has a copy?
Liberal
Bloc
Maxime Blanchette-Joncas Bloc Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
I want some clarifications.
Why are we talking about at least three meetings? Do you want to have several meetings? Why are we using the words “at least”?
Liberal
Jaime Battiste Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS
There are two things.
First of all, there's a bit of urgency in this matter. If we're looking at the herring stocks that are being used in the Atlantic, there are 450 million pounds of bait. We've had to do a reduction of herring by about 18% this year because of the stocks. That means we need between four million and eight million pounds of bait in the upcoming Atlantic fishery.
The biggest thing is an urgency issue. We'd like to get something done urgently so we can start looking at the upcoming snow crab season and the continuous lobster season to do this. We feel that three meetings are all that would be needed to get something done on this.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
My question was already covered. Urgency matters when you start, not how long you take. I don't know why we would put on a hard cap. I'm happy to support the motion. I just don't know why we would predetermine that it's going to take three meetings. It might take one or it might take five. I don't know why we would predetermine it with a set number. If I could get some clarification on it, that would be great.
Liberal
Jaime Battiste Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS
I apologize for the reading. It was a little all over the place, so I can understand my colleague's frustration, but it does say “at least three meetings” and not three meetings specifically. We believe that we should be able to cover it with a healthy dive into this over three meetings, but if it takes more than that, that's fine. We wanted to make sure that we're not studying this forever, because we need to figure out what we can do on bait in the upcoming snow crab and lobster seasons.